










Class __sXKi\A^ 

to i 



r \l \Z. 





























































































































































































































* 





























SENATE 


62d Congress 


( Report No. 769 
( Parts 1 and 2 


2d Session 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER 


i 



39 i 


OF THE 


47 ? 


COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE 
OF THE UNITED STATES 

U 


PURSUANT TO 


S. RES. 60 


DIRECTING A COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE TO INVESTIGATE 
WHETHER CORRUPT METHODS AND PRACTICES WERE 
USED OR EMPLOYED IN THE ELECTION OF WILLIAM 
LORIMER \S A SENATOR OF THE UNITED 
STATES FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 


TOGETHER WITH THE 


VIEWS OF THE MINORITY 


WASHINGTON 


1912 






. V ^ 



* 


0 rtf fir 

MY 23 '91? 






62d Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

j Report 

Session. j 


( 769. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


May 20, 1912.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Dillingham, from the Committee of the Senate appointed to 
investigate whether in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator 
of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used and 
employed corrupt methods and practices, submitted the following 

REPORT. 


The committee named in Senate resolution No. 60 of the Sixty-second 
Congress, first session, respectfully reports that immediately after the 
adoption of the same it organized and entered upon the work assigned 
it. Under its authority to employ counsel the services of John II. 
Marble, of Washington, and John J. Healy, of Chicago, were secured 
and the work was mapped out. On the 20th day of June a series of 
public hearings were inaugurated in Washington, which continued 
until August 9, when a recess was taken until October 10, on which 
day the committee convened in Chicago, and public hearings were 
held until November 22, when another recess was taken until Decem¬ 
ber 5, on which day the committee again took up the work in Wash¬ 
ington, where the hearings were continued until February 9, 1912. 
These public hearings actually occupied 102 working-days. One hun¬ 
dred and eighty different persons appeared and testified as witnesses, 
and a large volume of documentary evidence was secured. 

The record of such hearings has been laid before the Senate for its 
consideration. It is comprised in eight volumes, containing 8,588 
printed pages, with an accompanying digest index. 

The following is a copy of the resolution referred to: 

Resolved , That a committee of the United States Senate, consisting of the following 
members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections: Senators Dillingham, Gamble, 
Jones, Kenyon, Johnston, Fletcher, Kern, and Lea, be, and are hereby, authorized, 
empowered, and directed forthwith to investigate whether in the election of William 
Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used 
and employed corrupt methods and practices. 

That said committee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate, and 
during any recess of the Senate or of Congress; to hold sessions at such place or places 
as it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation; to employ 







2 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


stenographers, counsel, accountants, and such other assistants as it may deem neces¬ 
sary; to send for persons, books, records, and papers; to administer oaths; and as early 
as practicable to report to the Senate the results of its investigation, including all 
testimony taken by it; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the 
contingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the 
committee. 

The committee is further and specially instructed to inquire fully into and report 
upon the sources and use of the alleged ‘ jack-pot” fund or any other fund in its 
relation to and effect, if any, upon the election of William Lorimer to the Senate. 


STATEMENT REGARDING A PRIOR INVESTIGATION. 

Inasmuch as under a Senate resolution of June 20, 1910, the Com¬ 
mittee on Privileges and i lections of the Senate also made an investiga¬ 
tion of the question ‘ ‘ Whether in the election of said William Lorimer 
as a Senator of the United States from said State of Illinois there were 
used or employed corrupt methods or practices,” and inasmuch as 
the Senate on the 1st day of March, 1911, having fully considered 
the question, on the reports of such committee and the evidence 
taken, determined that Mr. Lorimer was entitled to retain his seat; 
and inasmuch as the present investigation is in the nature of a 
rehearing of the case, the committee at this point inserts certain 
important undisputed dates taken from the brief of counsel repre¬ 
senting Mr. Lorimer at this time, to aid in a ready reference to dif¬ 
ferent circumstances and events hereinafter more fully stated and 
considered. They are as follows: 

The Forty-sixth General Assembly of Illinois met and organized January 6, 1909. 
On that day the house elected Edward D. Shurtleff speaker. 

The first vote for United States Senator in the separate houses of the legislature was 
taken January 19, 1909. The first joint ballot for United States Senator was taken 
January 20, 1909. There were 95 joint ballots for United States Senator. More than 
150 different men were voted for, for United States Senator, by that legislature. 

The first vote for William Lorimer for United States Senator was cast May 13, 1909. 
William Lorimer was elected Senator on the ninety-fifth joint ballot, taken on the 26th 
day of May, 1909. 

There were 202 members of the legislature present and voting on the ninety-fifth 
ballot, May 26, 1909. On that ballot William Lorimer received 108 votes for United 
States Senator; Albert J. Hopkins received 70 votes, and Lawrence B. Stringer 
received 24 votes. Senator Lorimer had a majority of 14 votes. 

Two hundred and four members had been elected to the Forty-sixth General Assem¬ 
bly of Illinois. Paul Zaable, a member of the house, died in January, and the vacancy 
was not filled at that session. Frank P. Schmidt, a member of the senate, was not 
present at the taking of the ninety-fifth ballot. 

The total number of Republicans elected to the house was 89; the total number of 
Democrats elected to the house was 64. The total number of Republicans in the sen¬ 
ate was 38; the total number of Democrats in the senate was 13. The total number of 
Republicans elected to both houses of the legislature was 127; the total number of 
Democrats elected to both houses of the legislature was 77. 

On the ninety-fifth ballot 55 Republican votes and 53 Democratic votes were cast 
for Mr. Lorimer. 

William Lorimer was commissioned United States Senator by Gov. Deneen on 
May 27, 1909. 

Senator Lorimer was sworn in and took his seat in the United States Senate June 18, 
1909. 

On April 30, 1910, the Chicago Tribune published the White story. 

April 29, 1910, State’s Attorney Wayman filed a petition for and obtained an order 
calling a special grand jury in Cook County. 

May 2, 1910, the special grand jury convened and was sworn in. 

Lee O’Neil Browne was indicted on the 6th day of May, 1910, on a charge of bribing 
Charles A. White to vote for Senator Lorimer. 

May 28, 1910, Senator Lorimer made a speech in the United States Senate and 
demanded an investigation of the charges made by the Chicago Tribune April 30,1910. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


3 


On June 7,1910, Clifford W. Barnes filed charges in the Senate of the United States 
against Senator Lorimer. 

June 20, 1910, the United States Senate adopted a resolution, which was as follows: 

“ Resolved , That the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, or any 
subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate certain charges 
against William Lorimer, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and to report to the 
Senate whether in the election of said William Lorimer as a Senator of the United 
States from said State of Illinois there were used or employed corrupt methods or 
practices; that said committee or subcommittee be authorized to sit during the ses¬ 
sions of the Senate, and during any recess of the Senate or of Congress, to hold its ses¬ 
sions at such place or places as it shall seem most convenient for the purposes of the 
investigation, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to ad¬ 
minister oaths, and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent 
fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee.” 

A subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate of the 
United States, of which Senator Burrows was chairman, was appointed to investigate 
the charges against Senator Lorimer. 

On the 7th day of June, 1910, Lee O’Neil Browne was placed on trial under the . 
indictment returned against him. The jury in that trial disagreed and were dis¬ 
charged June 29, 1910. Lee O’Neil Browne was placed on trial the second time on 
the same indictment August 4, 1910. The jury in the second Lee O’Neil Browne 
trial returned a verdict of not guilty September 9, 1910. 

September 20, 1910, the subcommittee of the Committee on Privileges and Elec¬ 
tions of the Senate of the United States convened in Chicago to hear testimony. Sep¬ 
tember 22, 1910, the subcommittee of the Senate held its first public hearing. 

The subcommittee of the Senate concluded the hearing of testimony in Chicago 
October 8, 1910. 

December 7, 1910, the subcommittee of the United States Senate took further testi¬ 
mony in Washington, D. C., and on that day concluded the public hearings. 

December 21, 1910, the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate pre¬ 
sented its report to the Senate of the United States. The report exonerated Senator 
Lorimer and found: 

“In our opinion the title of Mr. Lorimer to a seat in the Senate has not been shown 
to be invalid by the use or employment of corrupt methods or practices.” 

On January 9, 1911, Senator Beveridge submitted his views to the Senate of the 
United States, dissenting from the report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, 
and offered the following resolution: 

“ Resolved, That William Lorimer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the 
Senate of the United States by the Legislature of the State of Illinois.” 

On January 30, 1911, Senator Frazier, a member of the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, submitted his views to the Senate, concurring in the resolution offered by 
Senator Beveridge. . 

The report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections and the resolution of 
Senator Beveridge were discussed and debated on the floor of the Senate at intervals 
until March 1, 1911. . . 

On the 1st of March, 1911, the resolution of Senator Beveridge was determined in 
the negative by the Senate; a roll call thereon resulted in a vote—nays 46, yeas 40. 

The Sixty-first Congress adjourned sine die at noon March 4, 1911. 

CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO PRESENT INVESTIGATION. 

While the question of Mr. Lorimer’s right to a seat in the United 
States Senate was under consideration and debate in that body, 
to wit, on January 17, 1911, a committee was appointed by the Senate 
of the Illinois Legislature, known as the Helm committee, to investigate 
the circumstances connected with the election of Mr. Lorimer as a 
Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois. By a peculiar 
coincidence Mr. II. H. Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, 
on the same day addressed to the Hon. Elihu Root, a Senator of the 
United States from the State of New York, the following personal 
letter, containing information which, if true, would have had a direct 
bearing upon the question at issue before the Helm committee as well 
as in the Senate of the United States, but the source of which informa- 


4 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


tion and its authenticity he could not make public or consent to have 
investigated because of the circumstances under which he had 
received the same. The information Mr. Kohlsaat says was given to 
him in confidence and, as a newspaper man, he felt “the same obli¬ 
gation to maintain secrecy that a priest does of a confession.” 

The letter was as follows: 


Chicago, III., January 17, 1911. 

Senator Elihu Root, 

Washington , D. C. 

My Dear Senator: I have just received a call from some well-known people 
here, among them Mr. Walter L. Fisher, asking me if I would not write you and tell 
you of an incident in the Lorimer senatorial election. My friends thought that if 
you had this personal knowdedge it would be of assistance to you in strengthening 
your belief that money was used to elect Lorimer. The information was given to 
me in confidence, and as a newspaper man I feel the same obligation to maintain 
secrecy that a priest does of a confession. 

Some time last June I met a friend who is general manager of a Chicago corporation 
with a capital of over $25,000,000. He said, “I have been intending to call on you 
for some days to tell you of an incident that occurred right after Lorimer’s election a 
year ago. I had a visit from Edward Hines, the lumberman, and he told me that 
Lorimer’s friends had had the opportunity of electing him to the Senate by putting 
up $100,000; that they had only a few days before the adjournment of the legislature, 
and could not take the time to go around and raise the money, so a half dozen of 
Lorimer’s friends underwrote the $100,000 and gave it to the proper agent. Lorimer 
was elected, and we are now asking some of the corporations to pay in then* share. I 
am taking care of the down town district, and another man (mentioning his name) 
has charge of the stockyards. We figure that your share will be $10,000.” My friend 
answered substantially as follows: “I can not give you any money for two reasons: 
First, we are not in that kind of business; and second, if you have gotten yourselves 
into a hole, why should you expect us to pull you out? ” 

On the strength of this statement the Record-Herald has explicitly stated several 
times, editorially, that $100,000 was raised to buy Lorimer’s election, and we have 
never had a protest from anybody on it. The man who gave me this information is 
absolutely reliable. He had no object in telling me a falsehood, and I believe him 
thoroughly. 

When Col. Roosevelt was here on his way to Cheyenne I told him of the incident, 
and it was the prime motive that prompted him to decline to sit at the Hamilton 
Club banquet with Lorimer. 

Hoping that this may be of some value to you, believe me, 

Yours, sincerely, 


II. H. Kohlsaat. 


On February 11, 1911, Senator Root replied to this letter, strongly 
urging Mr. Kohlsaat to induce the friend who had given him the infor¬ 
mation upon which his letter was based to disclose his identity. 

Upon receipt of Senator Root’s letter, Mr. Kohlsaat sent for Mr. 
Clarence S. Funk, general manager of the International Harvester 
Co., the friend to whom he referred in his letter to Senator Root as 
his informant, but whose name he had not revealed, and showing him 
the letter told him that he was the only man who could settle that 
question. Mr. Funk, after full consideration, refused to allow his 
name to be given, and on February 15, 1911, Mr. Kohlsaat so informed 
Senator Root in the following letter: 


Chicago, III., February 15, 1911. 

Dear Senator Root: Your favor of the 11th at hand. I agree with you my friend’s 
.testimony would greatly help at this time, but it would absolutely ruin him to take 
the stand. He w^as approached as an officer of the company, not as an individual, 
and could not come out in the open without the consent of the directors, some of whom 
are friendly to Lorimer. You can imagine the situation he is, and w’ould be, in. 

I know some of the forces at work to keep Lorimer in the Senate. If they succeed, 
God help us; a day of reckoning will surely come to the American people. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


5 


The weakness of the anti-Lorimerites is that the Chicago Tribune is back of the 
fight to unseat Lorimer. That paper is rendering a great service to tne people of these 
United States. 

Your speech made a great impression throughout the West. It was a wonderful 
plea for the right. 

Yours, faithfully, H. H. Kohlsaat. 

To Senator Elihu Root, 

Washington, D. C. 

On the same day, February 15, 1911, Mr. Kohlsaat published in 
the Record-Herald an editorial in which the following language was 
used: 

Do we know all there is to be known concerning the $100,000 fund that was raised 
to pay for Lorimer’s votes? 

This attracted wide attention and caused inquiries to be made of 
Mr. Kohlsaat by Senator La Follette and others who were anxious 
to ascertain upon what authority such statement and inquiry were 
made, and what the facts were with respect to the raising of the 
alleged fund. 

Senator La Follette telegraphed Mr. Kohlsaat asking for informa¬ 
tion regarding the allegation of the existence of a fund of $100,000, 
and received in reply the following telegram: 

Chicago, February 21, 1911. 

Senator La Follette, Washington, D. C.: 

If I had all the details of the raising and disposition of the $100,000, would not have 
asked the editorial question. That $100,000 was raised for that purpose I have abso¬ 
lutely no shadow of doubt, but can not prove. We have made the assertion a number 
of times editorially. The assertion has never been challenged. You are the first 
person to ask for particulars. 

H. H. Kohlsaat. 

Senator La Follette was exceedingly anxious to secure the informa¬ 
tion and endeavored to induce Mr. Kohlsaat to go to Washington, 
and, failing, wired his friend, Mr. Charles R. Crane, to see and induce 
Mr. Kohlsaat to do so. Mr. Crane visited Mr. Kohlsaat, exhibited 
the telegram, and urged him to go. Mr. Kohlsaat repeated to 
Mr. Crane the story he had written to Senator Root, but refused either 
to visit Washington or to reveal the name of his informant. Imme¬ 
diately thereafter Mr. Kohlsaat sent the following telegram to 
Senator La Follette: 

Chicago, III., February 22, 1911. 

Senator Robert M. La Follette, 

Washington, D. C.: 

Please ask Senator Root to show you my letters of January 17 and February 15. I 
gave Charles Crane this morning my reasons for not giving names. He agreed with 
me that it would not be just right or wise to do so. 

H. H. Kohlsaat. 

Neither Senator made public the contents of such letters and 
telegrams during the debates in the Senate, and Mr. Lorimer’s right 
to retain his seat in the United States Senate was determined in his 
favor by vote of that body on the 1st day of March, 1911. 

Almost a month thereafter the Helm committee, which did not 
commence taking testimony until March 28, 1911, summoned Mr. 
Kohlsaat as a witness to testify regarding the editorial in question 


6 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER.* 

and the facts upon which it was based, whereupon the following 
proceedings were had: 

Wednesday, March 29, 1911—9.45 o’clock a. m. 

The committee convened pursuant to the call of the chair. 

Herman H. Kohlsaat, called as a witness herein, being first duly sworn, was exam¬ 
ined by Mr. Healy, and testified as follows: 

Q. What is your full name?—A. Herman H. Kohlsaat. 

Q. Your residence is in Chicago?—A. Chicago. 

Q. You are the editor and proprietor of the Chicago Record-Herald?—A. Yes. 

Q. That is a newspaper published in the city of Chicago?—A. It is when the strikers 
do not shut us up. 

Q. As editor and proprietor of that paper, I assume, Mr. Kohlsaat, that you are—that 
you have general supervision and control over it?—A. Yes. 

Q. Exercise a supervisorv control over the paper and over the editorial pages?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. In February of this year, Mr. Kohlsaat, there was published in the Chicago 
Record-Herald an editorial in reference to the senatorial action at Springfield. I 
will show you a copy of that editorial, or what purports to be a substantial copy [hand¬ 
ing document to witness].—A. (Examining document). I think that is practically 
correct, because that is the way I felt and feel. 

Q. That editorial, then, was written by you?—A. Dictated. 

Q. Yes?—A. Yes. 

Q. You had information upon which that editorial was based?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have you any objection to giving the committee that information?—A. Yes. 

Q. You have objection?—A. Yes. 

Q. Well, do you object to giving the committee the information which you had 
without at this time perhaps identifying the individual or individuals who gave you 
the information?—A. Yes; because if I did that it would naturally lead up to the main 
party in the controversy, and it would undo just what I do not want to do. 

Q. That is what I want to show; if there is any main party here it will lead up to, 
that is what we want to show.—A. Can not I tell this in my own way? 

Q. Yes, certainly.—A. I am willing to answer questions as you put them. 

Q. Go ahead and make any statement that you please. 

Senator Burton. Can I see that paper? 

Mr. Healy. I have some other copies here. Just a minute; perhaps you might let 
the committee familiarize themselves with the editorial first. 

(Said copy of said editorial is in words and figures as follows, to wit:) 

[Wednesday, Feb. 15,1911.] 
bailey’s FALLACY—WITH APPLICATIONS. 

Senator Bailey has almost convinced himself that there was no corruption at all in 
the Illinois Legislature whichsent Lorimertothe Senate. Hisgrand “forgery” climax 
was cruelly spoiled, but undaunted he asserted that there was little except suspicion 
and talk in the Lorimer and jack-pot scandals. Generalizing, he contends that there 
is much less corruption and graft in the country than many people, misled by muck- 
rakers, have been led to believe. 

Now, this general statement may be true without lending any force whatever to 
Bailey’s view of concrete cases. Do we know all that we might about the Illinois 
jack pot? Do we know all there is to know concerning the $100,000 fund that was 
raised to pay for Lorimer votes? Do we know the true inwardness of the Browne, 
Erbstein, Keeley trials? 

In some instances there is undoubtedly more cry than there is wool in muckraking 
affairs. In others, like the Albany Allds-Conger scandal, the Illinois Lorimer affair 
and jack pot, the facts are much graver than the average voter in certain districts 
realizes, or men like Browne, Broderick, or Wilson would never have been reelected. 
If all the facts were known about Springfield and Albany graft a good many men 
would be moving penitentiary ward. In cases of bribery, perjury, looting of public 
treasuries it is not easy to get the “parties” to talk, for obvious reasons. What loose 
writers here and there say about unspecified graft has no bearing on concrete cases. 
In such cases the question is one of evidence—its quantity and quality—and of 
inference, probability, reasonable interpretation. 

(Mr. Healy here passed copies of the document to the members of the committee.) 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMER. 


By Mr. Healy: 

Q. There were a number of editorials written along that same line, were there not?— 
A. Yes. 

Q. About that time?—A. Yes. Shall I just tell this in my own way? 

Q. Just tell it in your own way, yes.—A. Shortly after the Chicago Tribune pub¬ 
lished Representative White’s story last spring I met a friend of mine, a man of the 
highest character, intelligence, and a man who does not make reckless statements, and 
he gave me a detailed account of the raising of $100,000 to bring about the election of 
Mr. Lorimer. He gave it to me in confidence. I told him that the confidence would 
not be betrayed. With that feeling of perfect security that this man’s information 
that he gave me was absolutely reliable, 1 took the position that the election should be 
investigated and came out editorially and backed the Tribune in its fight. The 
natural inclination in cases of that kind, where there are two great papers striving in 
the same field for circulation, advertising, and influence, is to, in the language of the 
street, knock the other paper’s story. But I was so impressed with the truth of this 
that I came out editorially next day after this and backed the Tribune in their story, 
and have done it ever since. 

As I say, this was given to me in confidence. The cardinal principle of an honor¬ 
able, upright, newspaper man is confidence. When I engage a cub reporter or put 
out a correspondent or a financial man on the street, I say: “Now, one thing you 
must understand from the start, that when a man gives you a piece of information in 
confidence you, under no circumstances whatever, must ever divulge his name. If 
you do, you will be discharged, no matter how important and vital to the newspaper 
that information is.” About a month ago we printed a story in Chicago exclusively 
that I would have been glad to pay $500 for—a big financial story. I asked the man¬ 
aging editor who got it, and he told me, and I sent for the man and I complimented 
him on his story, and then said, “Who gave it to you?” He said, “I got it in confi¬ 
dence.” I said, “If you tell me I will discharge you.” 

Now, I have talked that to my boys and men and correspondents, as Mr. Evans here 
can assure you personally, for 20 years, and nothing under heaven would make me set 
an example of breach of confidence to my men and to the other newspaper reporters 
and the men of thisYountry. There is no one that is more interested in maintaining 
that status of correct behavior between newspaper men and public men than you 
gentlemen yourselves. Suppose that, during this trial I had given the name of my 
informant and he had given the testimony; it would have had a wonderful influence 
in the case. But he is—I asked him if he had changed his mind and if I was at liberty 
to give the information, and he said, “No, I could not release you”; and he told me 
why, and his reasons were absolutely sufficient, and I would not violate that confidence 
for anything. 

Some of the Senators in Washington got hold of these same editorials, and Senator 
Root and others asked me if I could bring that evidence out. I told them I could not 
and would not under any circumstances. When I got the summons from your com¬ 
mittee to appear here—I have a great respect for any legislative committees that are 
out trying to probe and clean up corruption in the State—I came down here, 
but I wish that some one of the committee had come to see me beforehand, and I 
think I would not have had to sleep in upper 13 on the Alton last night, or try to 
sleep. I am sorry I can not do it, that I can not give you the information, but it is 
really impossible for j e to violate that confidence. I have been very frank with you 
and will answer any question except leading questions that you wish to put to me. 

Q. Did this gentlemen, whose identity you do not care to disclose, tell you that 
he had been personally involved in the matter, or came into personal contact with 

some one who had-A. Mr. Healy, I will have to refuse to answer all those questions, 

because you are too clever for me, and if I got started you might uncover some things 
that I would not want to go into. I have heard you before juries. 

Q. Well, that is very complimentary, Mr. Kohlsaat, but at the same time, I think 
you are quite capable of taking care of yourself.—A. Well, I find the safest way is to 
make a complete straight statement in the beginning and then not diverge. 

Q. And in your present frame and attitude of mind that is all the imformation that 
you would care to give the committee at this time?—A. Yes. I simply say that I am 
exactly of the same opinion to-day as I was when those editorials were written. All 
those editorials were written with this object in view. I felt that I was perfectly 
justified in taking the position, although legally I might not be able to accomplish 
anything. I think morally the support that we gave has been very beneficial, not only 
to the State of Illinois but to the country at large. The question of one man’s elec¬ 
tion to the United States Senate cuts very little figure. I believe that this investiga¬ 
tion that has gone on and the publicity and everything else has had a wholesome effect 


8 


ELECTION QF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


on the whole country, and I feel I would be lax in my duty as a leader in public opin¬ 
ion if I had not used the instrument at hand to strengthen public opinion. 

Q. Well, the information you got at that time impressed you with its accuracy and 
truth?—A. Absolutely. 

Q. And you were sufficiently impressed to justify the publication of the editorial 
which has been called to your attention?—A. Yes. And if you will read the editorials 
you will see that they are all written so that I could not be pulled up in a criminal-libel 
case and be made to tell the names. I never have used any names. 

Q. I am going to ask you some leading questions now, Mr. Kohlsaat. Did this in¬ 
formant tell you that he was approached with the request that he should contribute 
$10,000 to this $100,000 fund?—A. I decline to answer, Mr. Healy. 

Q. And which contribution on his part was to be used in conjunction with the sena¬ 
torial election in Illinois in 1909?—A. I must decline to answer. 

Q. Did he tell you that he was one of the 10 men who were asked to contribute to 
such a fund?—A. I decline to answer. 

Q. Did he inform you that a fund of $100,000 had been raised to induce the election 
of Senator Lorimer in the State of Illinois in 1909, and that subsequently the man or 
men who raised‘that fund desired to reimburse themselves?—A. Split your question, 
please, Mr. Healy. 

Mr. Healy. Just read the first part of the question. 

(The following portion of the question was read: “Did he inform you that a fund of 
$100,000 had been raised to induce the election of Senator Lorimer in the State of 
Illinois?'’) 

A. He did. 

Q. Did he also tell you that the man or men who had raised that $100,000 fund 
desired to reimburse themselves, or solicit 10 other men, residents of Chicago, to make 
that amount good?—A. I must decline to answer. 

Q. And did he tell you that he was one of the men so approached?—A. I decline 
to answer. 

Q. Did he give you the name or names of men who approached him, and what they 
said to him in connection with the matter?—A. I must decline to answer. 

Q. I assume that information was obtained—I believe you have answered this ques¬ 
tion, but in order to have the record clear in that respect, I assume that information 
was obtained at or about the time these editorials were published?—A. I can not fix 
that date in my mind, but it was after the publication of the White letter, very shortly 
after the publication of the White letter. 

Q. That was in April or May, 1910, wasn’t it?—A. Well, it was last spring, I did 
not- 

Q. About a year ago?—A. Just about a year ago. 

Q. Mr. Kohlsaat, did you verify the information received from this unnamed per¬ 
son in any other way?—A. No; I did not have to. I could not verify it, but so many 
things developed in the trials and everywhere else afterwards that corroborated it, 
although this man’s word personally to me was all that was necessary. 

Q. Well, by verification, I mean did you send to any of the persons whom he had 
named-A. Oh, no, no. 

Q. And cause them to be interviewed?—A. No; the matter came to me in confidence, 
and I could not go and ask a man such a question. He would say, “What is your 
authority?” And I am in duty bound when I ask a man a question of that kind, that 
has an insult in the question, to have some basis for it. 

Q. This man who gave you the information is a resident of Chicago?—A. I refuse 
to answer. I decline to answer, to put it politely. 

Q. Is he still living, as far as you know?—A. Yes. 

Mr. Healy. Well, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we ought to consider the matter 
perhaps in executive session and call Mr. Kohlsaat a little later, perhaps. 

The Witness. Could I get away at noon, gentlemen, because I have important busi¬ 
ness in Chicago? 

Senator Burton. I wish to ask him some questions. 

Chairman Helm. Before we proceed with the executive session you may ask some 
questions. 

By Senator Burton: 

Q. Mr. Kohlsaat, you say you are editor of the Record Herald?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Your paper has insisted upon this investigation being conducted?—A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. And yet when you are called here you refuse to aid us in that investigation?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Will you denounce any citizen that takes the same stand that you do and refuses 
to give us information by reason of a personal confidence?—A. I think a man that 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


9 


would violate a personal confidence is not worth his salt, and a newspaper man beyond 
all others. We could not run an honorable upright newspaper if we did it, and you, 
and you gentlemen here, are tremendously interested that there should be a straight¬ 
forward, manly, decent press. 

Q. Where do you draw the distinction between a private citizen and the editor 
of a great paper when he undertakes to purge the general assembly of a class of men 
that you have charged are here?—A. Well, it may be hard for me to impress that upon 
you, but in my story I told you that I had made that a cardinal principle with all 
my men, and I am not going to start out by giving them a bad example, no matter 
what the consequence might be. 

Q. Are you sure you are not giving them a very bad example now?—A. No. 

Q. How can you expect a private citizen to come here and give us information 
when a man occupying the position you do comes here and refuses to disclose the 
source of his information that inspired the editorial you have written?—A. Well, I 
think that a newspaper man, an editor’s position, is entirely different from a private 
individual, but if I were a private individual and gave my word I would not break 
it any more than I would as a newspaper man. 

Q. Then you think the private citizen that comes here and has obtained informa¬ 
tion in confidence is justified in refusing to answer, the same as you?—A. If that is 
his code of morals. That is my code. I can not be responsible for other people’s. 

Q. Have you a code of morals that justifies you in writing editorials and insisting 
that there should be a searching investigation and yet when called before this com¬ 
mittee to give information you refuse to give it? Is that your code of morals?—A. 
Well, I do not think that your question is fair. I think that I have stated so clearly 
my position in this thing, and that- 

Senator McKenzie. Isn’t it true, Mr. Kohlsaat, that in dealing with all public 
men and getting information from your correspondents that is treated as a privileged 
communication and the name of the giver of the information is held in the back¬ 
ground? Isn’t that right; isn’t that the way you get the news?—A. It is, if it was 
given in confidence. Mr. Evans there is my Springfield correspondent. If Senator 
McKenzie were to give Mr. Evans anything and say, “Mr. Evans, I don’t want my 
name to appear in this in any manner, shape, or form,” and Mr. Evans said, “It will 
not,” nobody could drag it out of him. I could not drag it out of him, and if I could 
I would not have him here. 

Q. You would not get very much, either.—A. That is so. [Addressing Senator 
Burton.] Answering your question, I have had very close personal relations with 
three Presidents of the United States who have sent for me and told me things in con¬ 
fidence that were vital in the extreme. We fought for those principles because they 
said they wanted to bring them about, they wanted to create public sentiment, and 
if I had told especially one thing that I have in mind now, when asked by a number 
of my newspaper editorial associates around the country, the source of tne informa¬ 
tion, it would have created a racket on both sides of the water. But that man knew 
that he was perfectly safe in talking to me, and when a newspaper man has a reputa¬ 
tion of violating confidence his usefulness as a public citizen and leader ceases from 
that moment on. Now, following along as a private individual, I can not do that. I 
have got all the trouble I can have looking out for myself, but that is my attitude. 

Mr. Healy. I think before we proceed further in asking questions we had better 
go into executive session, and we will ask everybody else to retire from the room for 
the present. 

(Whereupon the committee went into executive session, at the conclusion of which 
the open session was resumed and the following proceedings had:) 

Chairman Helm. Mr. Kohlsaat, the committee has agreed that we will have to 
require you to answer, and if you refuse that we will report the matter to the senate 
and request you to appear back here next Wednesday to see what the senate desires 
to do in the matter. Will you still persist in refusing to answer?—A. Yes. 

Q. You decline to make any further disclosure?—A. Yes. Could you make that 
Thursday? You see Tuesday is election day, and I am up pretty nearly all night. 

Chairman Helm. That will be satisfactory. 

Mr. Healy. That will be at what hour? 

Chairman Helm. What hour will satisfy you? 

Mr. Healy. You will probably have to be here, Mr. Kohlsaat, at the morning ses¬ 
sion of the Senate. I suggest we make it 10 o’clock, next Thursday, April 6. 

(The committee then took a recess until 2 o’clock of the same dav, Wednesday, 
March 29, 1911.) 

Having persistently refused to reveal the name of his informant, 
and the committee having insisted that he do so, Mr. Kohlsaat was 
excused for a week, pending action of the Illinois Senate thereon, and 


10 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


he returned to Chicago. The press gave great publicity to the inci¬ 
dent, emphasizing the fact that he was facing a possible arrest and 
imprisonment should he persist in such refusal, and much public in¬ 
terest was aroused, the result of all which was that Mr. Clarence S. 
Funk came forward and for the first time consented that his name 
as such informant be disclosed; and on April 5, 1911, Mr. Funk, to 
save Mr. Kohlsaat from further trouble, assumed the responsibility 
for such statement and testified before the Helm committee at Spring- 
field as follows: 

Clarence S. Funk, called as a witness herein, being first duly sworn, was examined 
by Mr. Healy and testified as follows: 

Q. What is your full name, Mr. Funk?—A. Clarence S. Funk. 

Q. Where do you live?—A. In Oak Park, Chicago. 

Q. How old a man are you?—A. Forty-four. 

Q. You are married?—A. Yes. 

Q. Have a family?—A. Yes. 

Q. And what is your business?—A. I am general manager of the International Har¬ 
vester Co. 

Q. How long have you occupied that position, approximately?—A. Since Novem¬ 
ber 1, 1906. 

Q. And where are your headquarters?—A. Harvester Building, Chicago. 

Q. How long have you been connected with the harvester company in any way?—A. 
Since its organization. 

Q. And about how long is that?—A. Oh, nine years. 

Senator Helm. Are there other witnesses that you desire to have excluded? 

Mr. Healy. No; no others. And I did not ask to have Mr. Funk excluded because 
the statement was simply preliminary. 

Q. What was your business before that, Mr. Funk?—A. I was sales manager for the 
Warder, Bushnell & Glessner Co., one of the concerns that sold out to the harvester 
company. 

Q. What, generally, are your duties as general manager of the International Har¬ 
vester Co.?—A. General supervision over the operating end of the business. 

Q. I direct your attention to a conversation that you had with Edward Hines, of the 
Edward Hines Lumber Co., in the latter part of the month of May, 1909, or the early 
part of the month of June, 1909. Did such a conversation take place?—A. Well, I can 
not identify the month. I had a conversation with Edward Hines shortly after 
Lorimer was elected United States Senator by the legislature. 

Q. Well, it is in the record here that the election of Senator Lorimer was on the 26th 
of May, 1909. Directing your mind to that time, or about that time, when was it that 
this conversation occurred?—A. It was shortly after that. I could not say whether it 
was 5 days or 10, but it was within a short time afterwards. 

Q. Where did that conversation take place?—A. Union League Club, Chicago. 

Q. And with whom was the conversation?—A. Edward Hines. 

Q. Was the conference arranged in any way or was it more or less accidental?—A. I 
met Mr. Hines accidentally, and he said he had been trying to get a chance to see me or 
get time to see me. 

Q. In what part of the L T nion League Club did that conversation take place?—A. 
In the large lounging room right off of the entrance. 

Q. And about what time of the day, Mr. Funk?—A. It was after lunch, in the 
afternoon. 

Q. You had gone over there to get your luncheon?—A. Yes. I was just coming out. 

Q. Coming down from the luncheon room, you met him in the lounging room?—A. 
Yes. 

Q. Now, will you tell the committee, Mr. Funk, what occurred and what was said at 
that conversation by Mr. Hines and by yourself?—A. Do you want me to undertake to 
repeat verbatim? 

Q. As near as you can remember; otherwise the substance of the conversation. 

Senator Helm. Where you can remember the exact language you will give it, and 
where you can not, then give the substance. 

A. Well, he said I was just the fellow he had been looking for, or trying to 
see, and said he wanted to talk to me a minute. So we went and sat down 
on one of the leather couches there on the side of the room, and without 
any preliminaries, and quite as a matter of course, he said, “Well, we put 
Lorimer over down at Springfield, but it cost us about a hundred thousand 
dollars to do it.” Then he went on to say that they had had to act quickly when the 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LOEIMEE. 


11 


time came; that they had had no chance to consult anyone beforehand. I think his 
words were these, “We had to act quickly when the time came, so we put up the 
money.” Then he said, “We—now we are seeing some of our friends so as to get it 
fixed up.” He says they had advanced the money; that they were now seeing several 
people whom they thought would be interested to get them to reimburse them. I 
asked him why he came to us. I said, “Why do you come to us?”—meaning the har¬ 
vester company. He said, “Well, you people are just as much interested as any of us 
in having the right kind of a man at Washington.” Well, I said—I think I replied, 
and said, “We won’t have anything to do with that matter at all.” He said, “Why 
not?” 1 said, “Simply because we are not in that sort of business.” And we had 
some aimless discussion back and forth, and I remember I asked him how much he was 
getting from his different friends. He said, “Well, of course we can only go to a few 
big people; but if about 10 of us will put up $10,000 apiece that will clean it up.” 
That is the substance of the conversation. I am repeating it verbatim just as far as I 
can, Mr. Chairman. I do not undertake to sav that is absolutely exact. 

I left him then in just a moment. As I left he asked me to think it over. I made 
no reply to that. I just walked away. 

Q. Is that the conversation as you remember it now, Mr. Funk, or do you recall any¬ 
thing else which was said with reference to the person to whom the money was to be 
sent?—A. Well, he—yes, he mentioned another name. Before I had any chance to 
say anything he had told me this, that he also mentioned the name of the man to whom 
he wanted me to send the money. 

Q. Who was that man?—A. I do not like to answer that question, because I have no 
evidence that the man he named had any knowledge of the transaction, had anything 
to do with it; and I do not want to drag in the name of another man in a matter of 
this kind, if I can help myself. I have no evidence beyond his statement to me. 

After considerable discussion the committee having held that the 
name should be revealed, the witness said: 

Well, I will answer, under protest. He told me to send the money to Ed. Tilden. 

Mr. Healy: 

Q. Who is Ed. Tilden, if you know?—A. Well, I think he is president or vice presi¬ 
dent of some one of the banks at the stockyards, and I believe he is one of the officials 

of the National Packing Co. I don’t know- 

Q. He is president of the National Packing Co., isn’t he, or connected in some offi¬ 
cial way with that company?—A. I understand so. 

PROCEEDINGS IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

This was the first information given to the public or which had 
come to the Senate or to any committee of the Senate concerning this 
now famous interview. 

The press of the country gave great publicity to Mr. Funk’s testi¬ 
mony before the Helm committee, and the following day, April 6, 
1911, Senator La Follette introduced into the Senate a resolution, the 
preamble of which was as follows: 

Whereas the Senate, by resolution adopted on the twentieth day of June, nineteen 
hundred and ten, authorized and directed the Committee on Privileges and Elec¬ 
tions to investigate certain charges against William Lorimer, a Senator from the 
State of Illinois, and to report to the Senate whether, in the election of said Lorimer 
as a Senator of the United States from said State of Illinois, there were used and 
employed corrupt methods and practices; and 
Whereas said committee, pursuant to said resolution, took the testimony of a large 
number of witnesses, reduced the testimony to printed form, and reported the 
same to the Senate, which was thereafter considered and acted upon by the Senate; 

and ...... 

Whereas the Illinois State Senate thereafter appointed a committee to investigate like 
charges against William Lorimer and to report to said State senate whether in the 
election of said Lorimer to the United States Senate corrupt methods and practices 
were employed and used; and 

Whereas as it appears from the published reports of the proceedings of the said Illinois 
State Senate committee that witnesses who were not called and sworn by the com¬ 
mittee of this Senate appointed to investigate said charges have appeared before 
the said committee of the Illinois State Senate, and upon being interrogated have 


12 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


given important material testimony tending to prove that one hundred thousand 
dollars was corruptly expended to secure the election of William Lorimer to the 
United States Senate. 

The resolution provided for the appointment of Senators Works, 
Townsend, McLean, Kern, and Pomerene as a committee to investi¬ 
gate “and report to the Senate whether in the election of William 
Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, 
there were used and employed corrupt methods and practices.” 

On May 22 Mr. Dillingham introduced a resolution providing for 
an investigation of the same character by the Committee on Privi¬ 
leges and Elections, the preamble of which was as follows: 

Whereas since the action by the Senate on the resolution of June twentieth, nineteen 
hundred and ten, relating to the seat of William Lorimer, it is represented that new 
testimony has been discovered; and 

Whereas the Senate of the State of Illinois did on the eighteenth day of May, nineteen 
hundred and eleven, adopt the following resolutions: 

“Whereas, under S. Res. 17, a committee was appointed to investigate charges 
of corruption and official misconduct against members of this senate; and 

“Whereas sai'd committee has reported the result of its investigation to this senate, 
from which it appears that there were important and material witnesses without the 
State of Illinois, whose attendance it could not legally compel and which witnesses 
refused voluntarily to appear; and 

‘ ‘ Whereas said committee was seriously impeded in the performance of its duties 
by what we believe to be the unwarranted action of a certain judge; and 

“Whereas it appears from the report of said committee that despite its inability 
to compel the attendance of such foreign witnesses and the adverse action of said 
judge sufficient evidence was procured to show that without bribery and corruption 
and by reason of the failure of certain senators and representatives during the differ¬ 
ent roll calls, to carry out the will of the people as expressed at the polls, in the 
choice for a United States Senator, which action we deem most reprehensible, and 
should be condemned, and which we hereby condemn.” 

On the same clay, May 22, 1911, Senator La Follette began a 
speech, dealing generally with the question of the validity of Mr. 
Lorimer’s election, alleging that new and material evidence had been 
produced through the investigation of the Helm committee, quoting 
Mr. Funk’s testimony regarding his interview with Mr. Hines, as 
well as the testimony given before that committee in relation to an 
alleged conversation between Christian F. Wiehe and William M. 
Burgess on a railroad train; he continued his remarks on May 23 and 
24, and concluded them on May 26. Among other things, Senator 
La Follette said: 

Shortly before the final vote on this case at the last session, when the question was 
before the Senate of agreeing by unanimous consent to fix a time to vote, I interfered. 
I objected in the hope that I could, before the Senate completed its consideration 
and disposed of this case, submit to the Senate reasons why the case should be still 
further investigated. 

After making such objection I made the most diligent efforts to secure facts of 
which I had received some intimation, in order to lay them before the Senate and 
induce it to defer further consideration of the case until there had been a more com¬ 
plete and thorough investigation. 

But, sir, with all that I could do, I was not able to come before the Senate so pre¬ 
pared that I would feel warranted in asking that it arrest the progress of the case 
and reopen it. 

On the same day Senator Bailey engaged in the debate, and, among 
other things, said: 

I speak without their authority, but I am sure that I speak with absolute accuracy 
when I say that in view of the testimony elicited by one of its committees, and in view 
of the resolution adopted by the State Senate of Illinois, every Democratic Senator 
favors a further and a thorough inquiry into the election of Senator Lorimer. That 
was the mind of Democratic Senators before the Senator from Wisconsin- began his 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 13 

extended address, and that is the mind of Democratic Senators since he has concluded 
it. * * * 

We favor this investigation because it is alleged that new and material evidence of 
corruption has been found. * * * It is upon this new evidence we base our votes 
and not upon any dissatisfaction with the former judgemnt of the Senate, nor upon 
any criticism with the work of the subcommittee which conducted the former investi¬ 
gation, * * * and it is no fair subject of criticism against it that some of the wit¬ 
nesses to those transactions concealed their knowledge from that committee and after¬ 
wards imparted it to another committee or to other people. 

If there were no new evidence, I would not vote to grant a new trial. * * * We 
must some time reach the end of even a proceeding like this; and if, without the dis¬ 
covery of new and material evidence, the Senate of each succeeding Congress could 
reopen and review the judgment of the preceding Senate, we would forever be in a 
struggle over questions like this. 

On May 26, 1911, Mr. Dillingham also took part in the debate, 
saying among other things: 

It seems to me, in consideration of the new evidence which has been discovered by 
the committee of the Illinois Senate, and in view of the difficulties it has encountered 
in securing witnesses from other States, and especially in view of the request of that 
body that the case be further investigated by the Senate of the United States, that this 
body * * * should follow the lines which the courts of law have always adopted 
under similar circumstances, and grant a new hearing and make further investigation. 

In support of his position, Senator Dillingham called attention to 
the Du Pont case in 1897, reading from the report of the Committee 
on Privileges and Elections, of which Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, 
was then chairman, as follows: 

The majority of your committee now, as then, are of the opinion that this decision 
of the Senate was wrong; but the Senate is made by the Constitution the judge of 
election, qualifications, and returns of its Members, and its judgment is just as binding 
in law, in all constitutional vigor and potency, when it is rendered by one majority as 
when it is unanimous. 

It is clear that the word “judge” in the Constitution was used advisedly. The 
Senate in the case provided for is to declare a result depending upon the application 
of law to existing facts, and is not to be affected in its action by the desire of its Members 
or by their opinion as to public policies or public interest. Its action determines great 
constitutional rights—the title of an individual citizen to a high office and the title of 
a sovereign State to be represented in the Senate by the person of its choice. We can 
not doubt that this declaration of the Senate is a judgment in the sense in which that 
word is used by judicial tribunals. We can conceive of no case which can arise in 
human affairs where it is more important that a judgment of any court should be 
respected and should stand unaffected by caprice or anything likely to excite passion 
or to tempt virtue. When the Senate decided the question it was sitting as a high 
constitutional court. In its action we think it ought to respect the principles, in 
giving effect to its own decision, which have been established in other judicial tribunals 
in like cases and which the experience of mankind has found safe and salutary. 

And further: 

We do not doubt that the Senate, like other courts, may review its own judgments 
where new evidence has been discovered, or where by reason of fraud or accident 
it appears that the judgment ought to be reviewed. The remedy which in ether 
courts may be given by writs of review or error or bills of review may doubtless be 
given here by a simple vote reversing the first adjudication. We have no doubt 
that a legal doctrine involved in a former judgment of the Senate may be overruled 
in later cases. But there is no case known in other judicial tribunals in which a 
final judgment in the same case can be rescinded or reversed merely because the 
composition of the court has changed or because the members of the court who origi¬ 
nally decided it have changed their minds as to the law or facts which is involved. 

On May 23, 1911, Senator Martin introduced a resolution pro¬ 
viding for a similar investigation by the Committee on Privileges 
and Elections, the preamble of which was as follows: 

W 7 hereas the Senate adopted a resolution June twentieth, nineteen hundred and 

ten, directing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate the charges 

relating to the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States; and 


14 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Whereas since the Senate voted on the report of that committee it is represented 
that new material testimony has been discovered in reference to such matter; and 
Whereas the senate of the State of Illinois, on the eighteenth of May, nineteen hundred 
and eleven, adopted a resolution for the reasons therein stated, requesting the 
Senate of the United States to institute further investigation of the election of 
William Lorimer to the Senate. 

A large number of Senators participated in the debates, which 
extended from May 22 to June 7, 1911. The greater portion of the 
time was occupied in a discussion of the work of the former committee 
and the question of the personnel of the committee to be appointed 
to conduct the investigation proposed in the several resolutions which 
were then pending in the Senate. All who took part in these debates 
favored the reopening of the case, and almost all, if not all, based 
their action on the ground of newly discovered evidence. As a result 
of these debates, on June 7, 1911, the following resolution, introduced 
by Mr. Dillingham, was adopted: 

Resolved , That a committee of the United States Senate consisting of the following 
members of the Committee on Privileges and Elections: Senators Dillingham, Gamble, 
Jones, Kenyon, Johnston, Fletcher, Kern, and Lea, be, and are hereby, authorized, 
empowered, and directed forthwith to investigate whether in the election of William 
Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois there were used 
and employed corrupt methods and practices. 

That said committee be authorized to sit during the sessions of the Senate and dur¬ 
ing any recess of the Senate or of Congress; to hold sessions at such place or places as 
it shall deem most convenient for the purposes of the investigation; to employ ste¬ 
nographers, counsel, accountants, and such other assistants as it may deem necessary; 
to send for persons, books, records, and papers; to administer oaths; and as early as 
practicable to report to the Senate the results of its investigation, including all testi¬ 
mony taken by it; and that the expenses of the inquiry shall be paid from the con¬ 
tingent fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the 
committee. 

The committee is further and specially instructed to inquire fully into and report 
upon the sources and use of the alleged “jack-pot” fund, or any other fund, in its rela¬ 
tion to and effect, if any, upon the election of William Lorimer to the Senate. 

RESULTS OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

Before taking up for examination the various lines of evidence which 
have a bearing upon the question submitted to the committee for its 
investigation, the committee desires to call attention to the fact, well 
known to the Senate but apparently unknown to a large proportion of 
the people of the United States, that the investigation is not compli¬ 
cated by any charges which involve Mr. Lorimer’s private character, 
the discharge of his public duties, or any other charge upon which his 
expulsion from the Senate might be predicated. 

The only duty which was laid upon the committee in the first inves¬ 
tigation or which has been laid upon this committee is “To investigate 
whether in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United 
States from the State of Illinois there were used and employed corrupt 
practices 2’ 

THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE. 

The newly discovered evidence, to which reference is made in the 
preambles of the resolutions offered in the Senate and to which refer¬ 
ence was made in the debates on the same, and the supposed existence 
of which resulted in the adoption of the resolution of the Senate under 
which this investigation has been conducted, all bore upon the ques¬ 
tion whether a fund of $100,000 was raised by or through the efforts 
of Edward Hines and others* acting with him, or by any other person 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LOEIMEE. 


15 


or persons, with or without his knowledge, which was corruptly used or 
expended in whole or in part to secure the election of William Lorimer 
as a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois by the leg¬ 
islature of that Commonwealth on the 26th day of May, 1909. 

The committee, after the most thorough investigation, during which 
every source of information has been probed, has failed to find any 
evidence that a fund of $100,000, or of any other sum, was raised or 
spent by Edward Hines or by him in connection with others, or with 
his knowledge, or by any other person or persons, to be used in or in 
connection with the election of Mr. Lorimer to the Senate of the United 
States, or that any corrupt practices were employed in such election. 

The only newly discovered evidence that can be said to refer either 
to the raising or the existence or to the use of such a fund is that given 
by Clarence S. Funk, regarding an interview had by him with Edward 
Hines on May 27, 1909, and that given by William M. Burgess con¬ 
cerning an alleged conversation with C. F. Wiehe, to which reference 
is hereinafter made. 

The evidence given by Mr. Funk before this committee is substan¬ 
tially as follows: 

That shortly after the election of Mr. Lorimer Mr. Hines approached 
him in the Union League Club, Chicago, between the hours of 1 and 2 
o’clock, and said: ‘‘Hello! You are just the man I was looking for,” 
or “that I wanted to see.” 

Mr. Marble. What did you say? 

Mr. Funk. He said: “I want to see you a moment.” 

Mr. Marble. What did you say to him? 

Mr. Funk. I probably said “Hello.” I don’t remember. 

Mr. Marble. What next? 

Mr. Funk. We walked off toward the eifd of the room, to the nearest couch, and 
sat down on the couch. Do you want me to tell what happened? 

Mr. Marble. Yes; go right ahead. 

Mr. Funk. Yes. He seemed to be feeling rather exuberant at the time, and he 
said: “Well, we put Lorimer over down at Springfield, but it cost us $100,000 to do 
it,” or “about $100,000.” 

Mr. Marble. What else? 

Mr. Funk. Then he went on to explain that they had to act quickly when the 
time came and did not have any time to consult anybody. And he said: “So we put 
up the money. Now, we are seeing some of our friends to get the matter fixed up.” 

Mr. Marble. What else? 

Mr. Funk. I inquired, along about that time, how much he was getting from his 
different friends, and he said: “Well, we can only go to a few big pegple; but if about 
10 of us would put up $10,000 apiece we would clean it up.” I asked him why he 
came to me, and he said: “Because you are as much interested as anybody in having 
the right kind of a man in Washington.” I told him we would not have anything 
to do with the matter. He wanted to know why, and I said: “Because we are not 
in that kind of business. ” (544-545.) 

Mr. Funk further testified that so far as he was aware there was no 
personal unfriendliness between them; that they did not shake hands 
at parting, and he does not know where Mr. Hines walked when he 
left him. 

Senator Lea. Was Mr. Tilden’s name mentioned in that conversation—Mr. Ed. 
Tilden? 

Mr. Funk. Yes, sir. 

Senator Lea. Tell us about that, please. 

Mr. Funk. Well, I suppose there is no use of my protesting about bringing in his 
name, because I have already made my protest in the record. But I want to repeat 
that I dislike very much to bring in the name of a man simply on Mr. Hines’s statement. 
Mr. Tilden’s name was used before he got through his talk. He said: “Just send the 
money to Ed. Tilden.” Assuming that we were going to send it, of course. (545, 
546-549, 80-85.) 

S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2-2 


16 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Further testifying, Mr. Funk said: 

He seemed to assume that it would be worth $10,COO to the International Harvester 
Co. to have the right kind of a man in the Senate from Illinois. (546.) 

Senator Kenyon. How early in the conversation did he mention Mr. Tilden’e 
name? 

Mr. Funk. I think he mentioned it in connection with the contribution of $10,000 
apiece by several big people. He talked rapidly, and rather assumed (hat the thing 
was going to be done, and he mentioned Tilden’s name before I had a chance to say 
anything. * * * He said that he thought if 10 big people would contribute 
$10,000 apiece that would clean the matter up. He said: >£ Just send the money to 
Ed. Tilden.” 

Senator Jones. You had not had any opportunity to say anything to him before 
that? 

Mr. Funk. No; I let him talk. He wanted to talk, and I was willing to listeti until 
he got through. 

Senator Jones. You made no answer of any kind to his suggestion that it had cost 
$100,000 to put Mr. Lorimer over? 

Mr. Funk. No; I think he went right along. That is my recollection. He did 
not stop there. He simply stated it as a fact, and then went on with his argument. 

Senator Johnston. You did ask him how much he expected you to contribute? 

Mr. Funk. No; I asked him how much he was getting from his different friends, 
as I recall it. (546-547.) 

HOW THE STORY WAS REGARDED AND HOW IT WAS USED. 

The subsequent history of this incident, so far as Mr. Funk’s conduct 
is concerned, bears out the conclusion that even if it occurred as he 
testified he regarded it as unimportant. While he testified that soon 
after its occurrence he communicated it to the president and to the 
general counsel of the International Harvester Co. and repeated the 
substance of it to the assistant manager (Funk, 556, 587), it was never 
again mentioned between them for a period of 21 months (Funk, 556; 
Bancroft, 384, 397-399; McCormick, 11-12), and the only other per¬ 
son to whom, so far as the evidence shows, he ever communicated it 
until he testified before the Helm committee in April, 1911 (Funk, 
556), was Mr. II. II. Kohlsaat, editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, 
a bitter political enemy of Mr. Lorimer, with whom he had a street 
conversation in Chicago immediately after the publication of White’s 
jack-pot story in the Chicago Tribune on April 30, 1910. 

That he did not then consider the story as a factor of any value in 
the vigorous investigations which followed the publication of the 
White story by the legal authorities of Cook and Sangamon Counties 
is evident from the fact that he not only pledged Mr. Kohlsaat to 
secrecy, but that he did not disclose the story to the law officers of 
either of these counties, nor afterwards to the Senate Committee 
on Privileges and Elections, which was charged with the duty of 
investigating the whole subject, nor to any tribunal which might 
have determined the truth or falsity of his versiQn of the interview 
between himself and Edward Hines or of the truth or falsity of the 
declarations alleged by him to have been made by Mr. Hines to him 
in that conversation. 

For 20 years prior to that time Mr. Kohlsaat had been strongly 
opposed to Mr. Lorimer politically (Kohlsaat, 428-431, 457-469), 
and he was in full sympathy with the investigation then in progress 
under the direction of the State’s attorney of Cook County, but he 
made no effort to substantiate Mr. Funk’s story, nor did he attempt 
to ascertain whether there was any foundation for the statement 
which Mr. Funk said Mr. Hines made to him in regard to the raising 




ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


17 


of a fund of $100,000; nor did he, so far as the evidence shows, ever 
discuss with Mr. Funk the advisability of communicating this infor¬ 
mation to the prosecuting authorities of Cook County, nor did he 
do it himself. That he looked upon the story as a newspaper and 
political asset is apparent. In his testimony before the Helm com¬ 
mittee at Springfield Mr. Kohlsaat says: 

He gave it to me in confidence. I told him that the confidence would not be 
betrayed. With that feeling of perfect security that this man’s information that he 
gave me was absolutely reliable, I took the position that the election should be inves¬ 
tigated and came out editorially and backed the Tribune in its fight. * * * I was 
so impressed with the truth of this that I came out editorially next day after this and 
backed the Tribune in their story, and have done it ever since. (Helm report, p. 58.) 

It appears also that Mr. Kohlsaat immediately communicated this 
information which he had received in confidence to Mr. James Keeley, 
the general manager and editor of the Chicago Tribune, in confidence, 
who made use of it as early as May 2, 1910, in an editorial paragraph 
headed, “Was it sawdust,” followed by the inquiry, “Who furnished 
the dust, to use a colloquialism, to bribe the legislature?” and on fre¬ 
quent occasions thereafter. (Keeley, 2010-2011, 2074-2075.) 

Mr. Kohlsaat also testified that he communicated the story in con¬ 
fidence to Victor F. Lawson, owner of the Chicago Daily News, going 
so far as to reveal to him the name of Mr. Funk as his informant, and 
that the information so conveyed to Mr. Lawson thereafter— 

influenced his editorial policy during the entire period of the Lorimer investigation 
(Kohlsaat, 440), and it gave him confidence to be very specific in his editorials in 
regard to the belief that money was used to buy the election. (Kohlsaat, 440.) 

Thus it appears that the three most powerful agencies for the crea¬ 
tion of public sentiment in the Central West acted together in a com¬ 
mon purpose to convince the public mind that the election of William 
Lorimer as Senator from the State of Illinois had been brought 
about by corrupt methods. 

The testimony further shows that Mr. Kohlsaat related this story 
to Theodore Roosevelt, likewise in confidence, late in the month of 
August, 1910 (p. 440), when the latter made a brief stop in Chicago 
on his way to Cheyenne. (Kohlsaat, 439, 440, 441.) September 8 
following, Col. Roosevelt returned to Chicago to attend a banquet 
which had been tendered to him by the Hamilton Club of that city. 
On the morning of that day he publicly announced that he would not 
attend such banquet if Senator Lorimer was to be present, with the 
result that, although a member of the club, Mr. Lorimer absented 
himself on that occasion. The public press teemed with accounts of 
this incident, producing a profound sensation, and intensifying the 
prejudice in the public mind against Mr. Lorimer. Col. Roosevelt 
subsequently wrote Mr. Kohlsaat that the story which the latter had 
told him as coming from Mr. Hines was the reason he declined to attend 
the dinner if Mr. Lorimer was to be present. (Kohlsaat, 440.) 

Mr. Kohlsaat repeated the story, told him in confidence, wherever 
it would do the most direct and positive injury to Mr. Lorimer, and 
always unknown to him,’ “observing the cardinal principle of an 
honorable, upright newspaper man,” and thus putting into practice 
observing his obligation to maintain “the same secrecy that a priest 
does of a confession.” 

During the summer of 1910 the grand juries of Cook and Sangamon 
Counties made exhaustive investigations of the charges of corruption 


18 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMER. 


in connection with the election of Senator Lorimer; indictments were 
returned, and Lee O'Neil Browne was tried and acquitted on a charge 
of having bribed Charles A. White to vote for Mr. Lorimer; on the 20th 
of September the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Privi¬ 
leges and Elections, charged with investigating the question whether 
Mr. Lorimer's election had been secured by corrupt practices, met in 
Chicago and remained in session there for three weeks. 

During that entire period the evidence discloses no instance when 
Mr. McCormick, Mr. Bancroft, Mr. Funk, Mr. Kohlsaat, Mr. Lawson, 
Mr. Keeley, or Col. Roosevelt saw fit to bring the information con¬ 
tained in Mr. Funk's statement to Mr. Kohlsaat to the attention of 
any person connected with any investigation or prosecution above 
referred to; nor does it disclose the fact that any of these gentlemen 
ever suggested to Mr. Funk the propriety of revealing the declaration 
alleged to have been made to him by Mr. Hines to any public officer 
or to any investigating body, so that its truth or falsity, and its value 
as evidence, might be properly determined. 

The evidence further shows that although Mr. Keeley disclosed this 
information to his counsel, Mr. Alfred Austrian, who represented the 
Chicago Tribune before the first senatorial investigating committee, 
no suggestion was made by either of them to that committee or any 
member thereof concerning the Funk story, nor did Mr. Hines's name 
appear on the list of names of persons furnished by Mr. Austrian to be 
summoned as witnesses before that committee. (Keeley, 1909-1912.) 

All the facts adduced by the evidence show that the Senate of the 
United States was permitted to take final action on the question of 
the right of Mr. Lorimer to retain his seat without any information 
whatever, as a body, of the existence of the Funk story, and the 
first knowledge of this incident reached the Senate through the 
public newspaper accounts of the testimony given by Mr. Funk before 
the Helm committee at Springfield, April 5, 1911, more than a 
month after the final action of the Senate in confirming Mr. Lorimer's 
right to his seat in that body. 

The testimony of Mr. Funk stands uncorroborated, either by the 
testimony of any other witness having knowledge of what occurred 
at this interview between Mr. Funk and Mr. Hines or by any circum¬ 
stances which tend to establish his version of such interview. 

The acquaintance between Mr. Funk and Mr. Hines had been of a 
casual, passing character. While both were members of the Union 
League Club, both were exceedingly busy men and met but few times 
in a year. They had no personal dealings with each other and their 
personal associations were confined to occasional meetings at the club, 
on railway trains, on the streets, at hotels, and in other public places. 

In view of the fact that it was known to Mr Hines that the relations 
existing between the officers of the International Harvester Co. and 
Mr. Lorimer were those of opponents rather than friends, it is improb¬ 
able that he would seek from Mr. Funk, the representative of that 
corporation, a contribution to aid in the election of Mr. Lorimer; and 
it is inconceivable that Mr. Hines, if guilty of an infamous crime, 
would have unreservedly revealed it under the circumstances described 
by Mr. Funk, &nd in any case to a person with whom he had so slight 
an acquaintance, and at a time when the election was so fresh in the 
minds of the public. And particularly when it appears that at no 
previous time nor even at that time did Mr. Hines know whom Mr. 
Funk preferred for United States Senator. (Funk, 543-544.) 




ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


19 


That Mr. Funk was a more than willing witness against Mr. Hines 
appears from his testimony. When asked how he knew whom Mr. 
Hines preferred for United States Senator, he replied: 

You would see his name in the paper every few days in connection with activities 
at Springfield, or hear it as a matter of general talk in the streets. (Funk, 544.) 

On cross-examination, when his mind was specifically directed to 
this subject, Mr. Funk testified, among other things, as follows: 

Mr. Hynes. You spoke, Mr. Funk, of Mr. Hines’s activities at Springfield. What 
did you have reference to there? 

Mr. Funk. Why, it was a matter of common talk that he was very active down there. 

Mr. Hynes. What did you understand he was doing down there? 

Mr. Funk. Pulling wires for the election of Senator Lorimer. 

-Mr. Hynes. What do you mean by that? What was he doing? How long was he 
down there in Springfield before the election? 

Mr. Funk. I do not know. 

Mr. Hynes. How long before the election did you hear that? 

Mr. Funk. I heard it frequently. (595.) 

******* 

Mr. Hynes. Do you remember anybody who told you that he was down at Spring- 
field active there in pulling wires for Senator Lorimer? 

Mr. Funk. I think that was a matter of common talk. 

Mr. Hynes. Can you tell me anybody that said it? 

Mr. Funk. I met a great many people that talked about it. I can not recall any 
particular man that made that particular statement. (595.) 

These statements must be considered in connection with the fact 
that Mr. Hines was not at Springfield during the session of the legis¬ 
lature that elected Mr. Lorimer, had not been there for three years 
prior thereto, and did not go there afterwards until summoned as a 
witness before the Helm committee nearly two years after such elec¬ 
tion and that such “reports” must have had birth in Mr. Funk’s 
imagination. 

From his own testimony it is clear that Mr. Funk treated his inter¬ 
view with Mr. Hines lightly. He says, “the conversation was quite 
as casual as if we were discussing the sale of a car of lumber as far as 
I can recall.” (Funk, 546.) He testifies that he was not surprised* 
at what Mr. Hines said to him because it “ comported with my general 
impression of the man” (Funk, 548), and being pressed to give that 
impression, he said: 

My observation has been that he was a loose talker. 

A man quite inclined to boast of his achievements, quite disposed to be familiar on 
short acquaintance, and quite anxious to have people think that he was a large factor 
in large matters. (Funk, 548-549.) 

Confessing his inability to substantiate his version of the interview 
with Mr. Hines, Mr. Funk gave as a reason for keeping the same 
secret that it was simply his word against that of Mr. Hines. 

There the case might have rested but for the fact that Mr. Funk 
afterwards attempted to corroborate his version of such interview by 
testifying that a day or two following the publication of the Record- 
Herald editorial of February 15, 1911 (Helm report, p. 71), 21 months 
after the interview took place, Mr. Hines visited Funk’s office in the 
Harvester Building in Chicago, where, as Mr. Funk testified before 
this committee, the following occurred: 

Mr. Funk. Mr. Hines arrived at my office one morning shortly after I got there, about 
9 o’clock, and he was admitted to my room. He seemed to be considerably agitated, 
and he immediately began to talk with me about our former conversation. 

Mr. Marble. What did he say? 


20 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Mr. Funk. I can not repeat it verbatim; but in substance be undertook to refresh 
my memory as to what our previous conversation had been. 

Mr. Marble. As nearly as you can, give what he said. 

Senator Kern. It is important that we should have the substance of that con¬ 
versation if you can not remember the exact words. 

Mr. Funk. The substance of it was that he did not want me to misunderstand our 
talk the other day; that he had not meant to say that any money was used, but that 
he was only discussing with me in a general way the situation down there; and that 
he got to thinking about it afterwards and thought that I might not have understood 
it, and he was back there to clear it up for me. 

* * * * * * * 

Senator Lea. Did you express dissent? 

Mr. Funk. My recollection is that I told him that I thought I remembered the 
thing as it was. I disposed of him as quickly as I could, because, as I remember it, 
we were having a directors ’ meeting that morning, or a conference of some kind, which 
was of considerable importance, and they were waiting for me. And I got rid of him 
and left the room as soon as I could. I do not think he was in the office over three 
minutes. 

Senator Lea. Did you part on friendly terms that day? 

Mr, Funk. Casual terms. 

Senator Lea. Was he satisfied with the visit, apparently, when he left? 

Mr. Funk. I did not observe in particular as to whether he was or not. My recol¬ 
lection is that he was not. 

Senator Lea. He was not? 

Mr. Funk. That is just an impression. I did not controvert his version of the thing. 
I heard him, and got out as soon as I could without making any particular comment 
about it. 

Senator Lea. Was his manner calm or excited or agitated? 

Mr. Funk. It was rather agitated. (Funk, 557-559.) 

Mr. Hines denies in the most positive terms that this alleged inter¬ 
view ever occurred, and testified that from and after February 6, 
preceding the date of it, until the morning of March 5 following he 
was not in Chicago, and that such an interview was a physical im¬ 
possibility. His testimony to that effect and to the effect that he 
spent that entire period in the East, and with the exception of a day 
in New York and one in Philadelphia he was constantly in Wash¬ 
ington, is fully sustained by both personal and documentary evi¬ 
dence of a character which leaves no doubt of the fact. (See record, 
904-908, 975-977, 981-983, 1869, 1832-1833, 1857-1858, 1829-1832, 
1834-1836, 50-51, 53-56, 1789, 1821-1828, 7054-7055, 7057-7059, 
6069.) 

The testimony of Senator Lorimer (record, 7575-7576, 7774-7776); 
Edward Thomas, (1789); C. R. Nelson (1821-1828) ; Thomas F. 
Toomey (7054-7056, 7063); Albert L. Swift (7069), and the produc¬ 
tion of hotel bills, letters, telegrams, books, and other documentary 
evidence fully sustain this finding of the committee. 

The attempt and failure of Mr. Funk thus to substantiate his ver¬ 
sion of his interview with Mr. Hines does not serve to increase confi¬ 
dence in the correctness of the same. 

Mr. Hines’s version of the Union League Club meeting on May 27, 
1909, is as follows: 

That he went to the club to keep a business appointment with Mr. 
Fred Carney, a manufacturer of lumber at Owen Sound, Canada, 
and the evidence shows that the Hines Lumber Co. was under a 
continuing contract to take the entire output of the Carney Lumber 
Co., but that by the terms of the contract the price was to be fixed 
each year. Mr. Carney was in Chicago at that time to secure an 
agreement upon that detail of the contract. At this meeting Mr. 
Hines was accompanied by Isaac Baker and Charles L. Hall, who 
were employed by the Hines Lumber Co. as buyers. The four met 



ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


21 


at 1 o’clock and were seated on a long couch in the lounging room of 
the Union League Club, and Mr. Hines testified that while there dis¬ 
cussing the business on account of which they met, he noticed Mr. 
Funk approaching—first noticed him when he was 6 or 8 feet away; 
that he arose and shook hands with him; that the conversation was 
opened by Mr. Funk’s declaration: “I am very glad to hear that 
Mr. Lorimer has been elected Senator,” or words to that effect, to 
which Mr. Hines replied: “I am pleased that you are glad that he is, 
and he ought to make a good representative of the State.” (846.) 

That Mr. Funk then continued: 

I would like very much indeed, at your earliest convenience, or convenience, I am 
not positive which, if you would arrange to introduce me to Senator Lorimer. I have 
never met him and I would like to have you introduce me to him. (847.) 

Mr. Hines told him he would be pleased to do so, and with that they 
together walked toward the door leading out of the club; that as they 
neared the exit Mr. Funk said: 

The Senator must have been put to more or less expense in this contest for the 
senatorship, and he ought not to stand that. The business interests ought to take it 
off his hands. We would like to contribute to that expense. I said to him that I 
did not know anything about the matter, but I said: I will see and let you know. 
(847.) 

Mr. Hines then returned to the gentlemen with whom he was 
engaged when interrupted by the approach of Mr. Funk and said to 
them: “That was Mr. Funk, general manager of the International 
Harvester Co.” (847.) 

In his testimony Mr. Hines denies in general and in detail every 
material statement made by Mr. Funk as to the interview had between 
them at that time, except the bare fact that they met and spoke with 
each other. 

In his denial of Mr. Funk’s statement that he approached Mr. Funk 
and said: “You are just the man I was looking for,” and in his asser¬ 
tion that Mr. Funk approached him with the declaration: “I am very 
glad to hear that Mr. Lorimer has been elected Senator,” he is cor¬ 
roborated by the testimony of three witnesses: Isaac Baker, Fred 
Carney, and Charles L. Hall. 

Mr. Baker testified: 

There was a gentleman came up and said: “How do you do, Mr. Hines,” and Mr. 
Hines got up and shook hands with him; and he made the remark: “I see that Sen¬ 
ator Lorimer is elected, and I am glad of it.” Mr. Hines replied to him and said: 
“Yes; I think he will make a good representative.” And the gentleman then said, 
“I have never met the Senator and would like to be introduced to him.” At that he 
turned around and they walked off toward the exit, where they go out of the club- 
room. (1431.) 

They stood there maybe two minutes, and Mr. Hines returned to us, and he said 
to Mr.'Carney: “That is Mr. Funk, the general superintendent of the International 
Harvester Co.” (1432.) 

Mr. Carney testified: 

As I recall it, we were all sitting on this couch, when a gentleman walked across the 
room in the direction toward which we were facing. I really did not pay much atten¬ 
tion to him, but I do recollect that possibly when he was 10 or 12 or 15 feet, possibly 
farther awav from us, he had a smile on his face, and he evidently had caught some¬ 
body’s eye—some of the four of us. When he got up possibly within 6 to 7 feet, or 5 or 
6 feet, I will not say which, Mr. Hines got up. Mr. Hines was sitting next to me. He 
got up and stepped out 3 or 4 feet and shook hands with this gentleman. 

Mr. Fakrar. Did you hear the conversation that took place between them? 

Mr. Carney. No, sir; I did not. 

Mr. Farrar. What took place after they met? Explain that. 


22 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Mr. Carney. Mr. Hines stood talking with this gentleman for a minute or two, 
possibly, and, as I remember it, the two of them walked off from there—they had been 
almost directly in front of this couch—walked off toward the right toward the exit of 
the room. Mr. Ilines came back directly; possibly he was gone three or four minutes. 

Mr. Farrar. What did Mr. Hines say when he came back? 

Mr. Carney. Mr. Hines came back and sat down, and he said,“Well, Carney, that 
is not a very heavy fellow for a fellow holding down a big job, is he?” I said, “No, 
sir; he is not. Who is it?” Pie said, “That is Mr. Funk, general manager of the 
International Harvester Co.” (Carney, 1047-1048.) 

He also said that Mr. Hines said that Mr. Funk had congratulated 
him on the election of Mr. Lorimer. 

Mr. Hall says in his testimony that they were— 

interrupted by a gentleman coming across the room, diagonally across the room, to 
where we sat. The gentleman came within a few feet of Mr. Hines and spoke to him 
and said, “How do you do, Mr. Hines.” Mr. Hines got up and shook hands with him 
and called him “Mr. Funk,” and they talked perhaps two minutes or three minutes 
to the best of my judgment. 

******* 

This gentleman said to Mr. Hines, “I am very glad that Mr. Lorimer has been 
elected Senator.” 

* * * * * *'* 

Mr. Hines expressed himself as being pleased. I do not remember just the words 
he used, but. he expressed himself as being pleaded, anyway. Mr. Funk said to Mr. 
Hines: “I have never met the Senator, and would be glad to have you introduce him 
to me at your convenience.” (1064-1065.) 

That they then walked away toward the entrance of the room; 
that Mr. limes stood there and talked for a few minutes with him, 
maybe two or three minutes, and returned to where the three other 
men were on the couch and said: “That is Mr. Funk, general manager 
of the International Harvester Co.” (1064-1065.) 

From the testimony of these witnesses it appears that the conversa¬ 
tion between Mr. Hines and Mr. Funk was of very brief character, 
occupying not more than a few minutes, during which time they were 
walking from the point at which they met to the outside entrance of 
the club, and that they did not sit down nor have any extended talk. 

In his testimony Mr. Hines, referring to Mr. Funk’s desire for an 
introduction to Mr. Lorimer and his willingness to contribute to his 
campaign expenses, said: 

The impression I got at that time was, knowing the intense feeling that had existed 
between the McCormick people and Congressman Lorimer, and Mr. Funk having 
recently taken charge as general manager of the company, I thought he was trying to 
curry favor with the Senator, who had recently been elected Senator. That was the 
impression. (849.) 

The evidence shows that Mr. Hines called at the home of Mr. 
Lorimer on the Sunday evening following his election to the Senate 
(852), at which time he testified: 

I said to him, “I met Mr. Funk in the Union League Club the other day, and he is 
very anxious to be introduced to you.” He said, “What did you say?” I said, “I 
told him I would be pleased to so do.” He said, “Mr. Funk is one of my active ene¬ 
mies, Mr. Hines, and I do not care to meet him particularly.” I said, “Well, Senator, 
I rather promised to introduce you to him, and I would like very much to carry out 
my promise.” He said, “As long as you have promised, I will meet him.” 

Then I said, “Congressman, were you put to any great expense in the contest down 
at Springfield? ” And in a sort of a half-laughing and jocular way he said, “Well, you 
know I don’t drink or smoke, and I was not put to any extra expense at Springfield, ” 
and that was all there was to it. (853.) 

Senator Lorimer corroborates Mr. Hines’s statement as to his visit 
on this occasion, and in fegarcl to the proposed introduction to 





ELECTION OP WILLIAM LORIMER. 


23 


Mr. Funk, said that he told Mr. Hines that Mr. Funk had always 
been an enemy of his, and that he did not care to meet him; that 
after some discussion he agreed to meet him, and while he does 
not recall the talk concerning his expenses, testified that, if Mr. Hines 
asked him, he told him he had none (Lorimer, 7564, 7733-7734, 
7760-7779), because the only expenses he had were his hotel bills 
and his railroad fare, which would have been incurred anyway 
because of his trips back and forth between Washington and Spring- 
field to look after the waterway legislation (7564-7565). 

Before leaving Chicago on the morning following this talk at 
Mr. LorimeFs home, Mr. Hines instructed his brother-in-law, 
Mr. Wiehe, to see Mr. Funk and tell him there was nothing in the 
matter about which he talked with him (Hines, 858), but did not 
explain to Mr. Wiehe to what the remark referred (858), and on the 
following Wednesday, Mr. Hines being in Washington, Mr. Wiehe 
called him on the long-distance telephone, and after discussing 
personal business matters, told him that his message did not seem 
to suit Mr. Funk, who seemed anxious to meet him in Washington 
on the following Saturday (858). Mr. Hines was then unable to 
make an engagement, but on the following Friday, June 4, 1909, 
telegraphed the Edward Hines Lumber Co. at Chicago as follows: 

Have Funk meet me Chicago Saturday or Sunday. Could meet him any time. 
Like to leave here to-day. Answer quick. 

And received in reply the following: 

Funk New York to-day. Leaves this afternoon, Washington. There to-morrow. 
You can reach him to-day, George Perkins’s office or Judge Gary, 51 Broadway. 

This incident is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Wiehe. 
(1677, 1741, 1743, 1747.) 

Without waiting to meet Mr. Funk in Washington, Mr. Hines left 
for Chicago that afternoon. (860.) He testified that he had no 
business of a personal nature pending with Mr.Funk, and that he knew 
of no reason why the latter desired to meet him beyond what was 
expressed in the message of Mr. Wiehe to the effect that Mr. Funk did 
not seem satisfied with what he had said to him and wanted to see 
Mr. Hines personally. 

The statement of Mr. Hines is further corroborated by the fact that 
during the deep waterways convention which was held in Washington, 
and as Gov. Deneen testified, in the fall of 1909, Mr. Funk met him in 
the New Willard Hotel and was taken by Mr. Hines to a room upstairs 
and introduced to Mr. Lorimer. (Funk, 533; Hines, 861-862; 
Lorimer, 7564, 7575.) 

Much time has been spent and space given to a discussion of what 
occurred during the brief conversation between Messrs. Funk and 
Hines on May 27, 1909, not because it is conclusive of the facts 
alleged, but because it was the controlling factor in the action of the 
Senate in reopening the case and in the appointment of this committee. 

The vital question to be determined is whether a fund of $100,000 
was in fact raised by or through the efforts of Edward Hines and 
others acting with him, or by any other person or persons with his 
knowledge, which was corruptly used or expended in whole or in 
part to secure the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the 
United States from the State of Illinois. 


24 


ELECTION OF AVILLIAM LORIMER. 


WAS SUCH A FUND RAISED? 

After the most searching inquiry the committee is unable to find any 
evidence that any sum of money was raised or contributed by Mr. Hines, 
or through his suggestion, or with his knowledge, to be used corruptly 
in securing the election of Mr. Lorimer as a Senator of the United 
States from the State of Illinois, or that Mr. Hines participated in 
any corrupt practices of any nature in connection with such election, 
nor can the committee find that any such fund was raised by any 
person or persons to be so used. The committee goes further and 
reports that it finds no evidence that any such fund was ever contem¬ 
plated by Mr. Hines, or suggested to him by any of the gentlemen with 
whom he conferred before the election of Mr. Lorimer regarding the 
election of a Senator of the United States from the State of Illinois, 
and in fact there is no proof that Mr. Hines raised or furnished or 
spent improperly any money to aid in the election of Mr. Lorimer. 

MR. HINES’S INTEREST IN THE ELECTION. 

In connection with this finding the committee thought best to 
incorporate at this point a statement of what the evidence discloses 
regarding the activities of Mr. Hines in connection with the election 
of Mr. Lorimer. 

While Mr. Hines has had a general acquaintance with Mr. Lorimer 
covering about 19 years, he has never had any business relations with 
him, nor has Senator Lorimer been the owner of stock in any corporation 
in which Mr. Hines has been interested; and although Mr. Hines was 
a resident of Mr. Lorimer’s congressional district about nine years, he 
never took any interest in the political fortunes of the latter, beyond 
voting for him, except in the year 1906, when horses and wagons of 
the Edward Hines Lumber Co. were loaned to the Lorimer committee 
for a street parade, and Mr. Hines secured the signatures of 25 or 30 
business men to a circular which was sent out to voters, showing Mr. 
Lorimer to be a protectionist, and the value of his work in favor of 
deep waterways. Mr. Hines does not remember whether he paid for 
the printing of these circulars or not; but if so, that is the only con¬ 
tribution ever made by him or any of the companies with which he 
was connected to any campaign fund to aid Mr. Lorimer at any time. 
(882.) 

A major portion of the winter and spring of 1909, during which the 
Legislature of Illinois was in deadlock over the election of a Senator, 
Mr. Hines spent in Washington, representing the interests of the 
National Lumber Manufacturers’ Association, in connection with the 
tariff legislation then under consideration. He did not visit Spring- 
field during the senatorial contest, and had not been in that city for 
at least five years prior to his appearance as a witness before the 
Helm committee in the spring of 1911. (813.) 

Mr. Hines apparently had no interest in the senatorial contest, and 
according to the evidence did nothing in connection therewith until 
the 1st of February, 1909, when, at the request of Mr. Hibbard, of 
the firm of Hibbard, Spencer & Bartlett, hardware dealers in Chi¬ 
cago, a codirector with Mr. Hines on the Continental National Bank 
board, he telegraphed Mr. Lorimer, suggesting the candidacy of Mr. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 25 

A. C. Bartlett, and followed this telegram by a letter, in which he * 
said: 

Mr. Hibbard came to me this morning about the candidacy of Mr. A. C. Bartlett. 

* * * I feel it might be good policy to nominate a man of this kind, if you have not 
committed yourself elsewhere. * * * Probably you have already committed 
yourself along other lines. (811-812.) 

In response to this, some time prior to the 1st of April, Mr. Lorimer 
told Mr. Hines that the different factions could not, apparently, unite 
on Mr. Bartlett. (812.) 

During the next two months, from February 1 to April 1 , 1909, 
Mr. Hines, as representative of the National Lumber Manufacturers’ 
Association, looking after tariff legislation, in Washington, was much 
occupied and paid no attention to the Illinois situation. In this 
work he was brought frequently into contact with Senators Aldrich 
and Penrose, members of the Senate Committee on Finance, which 
was then conducting hearings in connection with the tariff schedules. 

The legislative deadlock in Illinois naturally became a topic of 
conversation between them and was discussed first as a matter of 
political gossip (1791); then as the situation developed, the probabil¬ 
ity of the deadlock being broken was often discussed. (1792). 
Early in the month of April Senator Penrose sent for Mr. Hines and 
asked him if he knew the situation or could find out whether the leg¬ 
islature was liable to adjourn without electing a Senator; Mr. Hines 
replied that he did not know, but would try to find out. 

To this end Mr. Hines talked first with Congressmen Boutell and 
Madden, of Chicago, who told him they did not know the real situa¬ 
tion, but that probably Congressman Lorimer could give him the 
information, whereupon he telephoned to Mr. Lorimer, who was in 
Chicago, and arranged to see him at his office upon his return to Wash¬ 
ington; at the interview then had Mr. Hines told Congressman Lori¬ 
mer that he was not personally interested in the matter, but that 
Senator Penrose appeared to be much interested, and had asked him 
to make inquiries. Mr. Lorimer stated that the situation was indefi¬ 
nite; that he could not then say what it really was; but that he was 
going to Springfield the following night; would return to Washing¬ 
ton in about a week, and might then be able to speak with a better 
knowledge. (813.) Mr. Ilines reported this conversation to Senator 
Penrose. (814.) 

A week or two later Mr. Hines again talked with Mr. Lorimer, who 
told him that the situation remained practically unchanged. Mr. 
Hines then inquired particularly as to the men under consideration, 
and Mr. Lorimer mentioned Congressmen McKinley and Lowden, 
Judge Grosscup, and Mr. Calhoun." (816.) Mr. Hines reported this 
conversation, as well as what he heard from other sources regarding 
conditions in Illinois, to Senator Penrose, as he met him in connection 
with the tariff matters. (1794.) 

About the last of April Senator Penrose told Mr. Hines that Sena¬ 
tor Aldrich would like to see him and went with him to Senator 
Aldrich’s office, and in a conversation between them the general sit¬ 
uation in Illinois, including the election of a Senator, was discussed, 
during which Mr. Hines stated that, in his judgment, Senator Hop¬ 
kins could not be reelected, and he asked Senator Aldrich what the 
attitude of the President would be with reference to the matter. 


26 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Senator Aldrich replied that the President was desirous that a 
Republican Senator should be elected in Illinois, and while he was 
naturally friendly to Senator Hopkins on account of the fact that the 
latter had received the primary nomination, and perhaps for other 
reasons, he did not intend to take any active part in influencing the 
action of the legislature; that his wish was that a Republican should 
be elected, but that he would take no steps in furtherance of Senator 
Hopkins’s candidacy or that of any other person. (1648.) 

A little later Mr. Hines had another interview with Mr. Lorimer, in 
which he asked him the direct question whether or not he was a candi¬ 
date for the senatorship; and the latter replied that he was not, giving 
as the one important reason his great interest in the deep-waterway 
proposition which he felt he could best promote by remaining in the 
House. At that time Mr. Lorimer asked Mr. Hines if he had anyone 
to recommend for the position (821), and Mr. Hines suggested Con¬ 
gressman Boutell, which met the approval of Mr. Lorimer; but he 
could not tell how Mr. Boutell’s name would be received. (822.) Mr. 
Hines told Senator Penrose of this, who, in turn, had a talk with Mr. 
Boutell. About the same time Mr. Hines had an interview with Sen¬ 
ator Aldrich regarding the attitude of the President toward the can¬ 
didacy of Mr. Boutell, stating that an effort was being made to agree 
upon him as the successor of Senator Hopkins. 

He asked Senator Aldrich if he would see the President , ascertain his 
attitude and advise him, and Senator Aldrich afterwards in another 
conversation reported to him that the President would be agreeable to 
Mr. Boutell’s candidacy; that his anxiety was to have a Republican 
elected, and that he was satisfied with Mr. Bout ell’s Republicanism 
and would have no objection to his election. (1649.) Mr. Lorimer’s 
candidacy was not suggested or discussed at that time. (817; Aldrich, 
1648-1649-1650.) Mr. Hines told Mr. Boutell what he had done, 
and suggested to him that he see the President. Mr. Boutell did so, 
and also wrote letters to Chicago to ascertain how his candidacy 
would be regarded in Illinois; later he went to Chicago and after a care¬ 
ful investigation found that it would be impossible to get the differ¬ 
ent factions to unite on him (826); and Mr. Hines told Senator Pen¬ 
rose of the failure of that undertaking. (1792.) 

As time passed the names of Messrs. Boutell, Lowden, and others 
mentioned in connection with this election, were in the progress of 
events eliminated, and Mr. Hines ultimately suggested to Senator Pen¬ 
rose that Mr. Lorimer might be the man upon whom the different 
factions could unite, but because Mr. Lorimer had previously informed 
him that he preferred to remain in the House it was doubtful if he 
could be induced to enter the contest. Senator Penrose also learned 
from other sources that Mr. Lorimer was the only available can¬ 
didate. (1802.) 

Just previous to the election of Mr. Lorimer by the Legislature of 
the State of Illinois one or two interviews took place between Senator 
Aldrich and Mr. Hines regarding the candidacy of Mr. Lorimer and 
the attitude of the President with respect thereto. Regarding one 
of these, Senator Aldrich in his testimony says: 

Mr. Hines then told me that it was impossible to agree upon Mr. Boutell, and he 
thought there was a prospect—he said a very good prospect—of agreeing upon Mr. 
Lorimer; and he was anxious that I should find out the attitude of the President, the 
administration, toward Mr. Lorimer’s election, and tell him what it would be. 




ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


27 


This the committee finds was at Senator Aldrich’s committee room, 
late in the evening; that together they rode to Senator Aldrich’s house, 
where Mr. Hines was left to await the return of Senator Aldrich from the 
White House, where he went to have a consultation with the President 
in relation to this matter. Senator Aldrich returned home from this 
interview about midnight, and in his testimony says: 

I told him that Mr. Lorimer’s candidacy would not be objectionable to the Presi¬ 
dent. Then Mr. Hines asked me if I was willing to say that to anyone that he might 
suggest to inquire of me upon the subject; and I said that I was—that if I were asked 
in reference to the matter I should say that Mr. Lorimer’s candidacy would not be 
objectionable to the President. 

Regarding the time of this interview, Senator Aldrich testifies: 

I know that it was prior to the election, and my impression is that Mr. Hines told 
me that he was to leave for Chicago either that day or the next day, or some time 
very near that. 

And on this point Senator Aldrich’s testimony is as follows: 

Senator Kern (1653). Did you have any conversation with Mr. Hines at all about 
Gov. Deneen, or the part Gov. Deneen was to take in the contest? 

Senator Aldrich. I think at this conversation Gov. Deneen’s name was mentioned 
by Mr. Hines; not by me. 

******* 

The Chairman. What did he say about Deneen? 

Senator Aldrich. My recollection is that Deneen was an important party to this 
arrangement, or agreement, upon a candidate, and that Deneen’s attitude would be 
more or less influenced by knowing whether it would be agreeable to the President. 
That was my general impression with regard to that matter. 

Both Senators Aldrich and Penrose corroborate Mr. Hines in all 
essential features of his account of what took place leading up to 
and including his activities in behalf of Senator Lorimer. 

Endeavoring to carry out what he understood to be the desire upon 
the part of Senator Aldrich and the administration, Mr. Hines went 
from the home of Senator Aldrich to the New Willard Hotel, from 
whence, sometime after midnight, he called up Congressman Lorimer 
on long-distance telephone at Springfield and gave him Senator 
Aldrich’s message. Mr. Lorimer expressed some surprise at men¬ 
tion of the President’s name, but Mr. Hines repeated the statement, 
telling him there was no question about it, as he had but then finished 
talking with Senator Aldrich, after the latter’s return from a confer¬ 
ence with the President at the White House, and that they would 
do all they could to assist in his election. Mr. Lorimer asked if 
Senator Aldrich would send him a telegram to that effect, and Mr. 
Hines assured him that he himself was authorized to send such a 
message, and Mr. Lorimer told him to send it. Mr. Hines then asked 
Congressman Lorimer if he would become a candidate, to which the 
latter replied: 

At this time I can not say; after I get the telegram I will give the matter consider¬ 
ation. 

Mr. Hines accordingly sent the telegram. Senator Lorimer testi¬ 
fies that this was the first word he received from Mr. Hines concern¬ 
ing his candidacy, and Mr. Hines says it was the first time the subject 
was mentioned between them after the talk in April when Congress¬ 
man Lorimer told him he would not be a candidate for the senator- 
ship. Senator Lorimer locates the date of this telegram between the 
20th and 25th of May, and Mr. Hines puts the date May 23, 1909. 


28 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Mr. Hines testifies that matters ran on for a few days, and that 
Senator Aldrich again sent for him and urged him to go to Springfield 
and see the governor personally and impress upon his mind the 
importance to the administration of the election of a Republican, and 
if Mr. Lorimer could be elected to have him assist in accomplishing it. 
This was on the morning of May 25, 1909, and Mr. Hines left for 
Springfield via Chicago that afternoon. 

While the committee find some confusion in the testimony on the 
question whether there were two interviews between Senator Aldrich 
and Mr. Hines regarding the election of Mr. Lorimer and the mission of 
Mr. Hines in connection therewith, they are of the opinion that Mr. 
Hines’s memory is the more accurate, and that such was the case; 
but if, as Senator Aldrich thinks, there was but one interview, it must 
have been on the night of May 24, 1909, for before leaving Washington 
the following day, May 25, Mr. Hines sent the following telegrams to 
Mr. Lorimer, who was at Springfield: 

May 25, 1909. 

William Lorimer, 

St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, III.: 

Aldrich authorizes governor calling him up telephone. Confirm my message; con¬ 
ference last night; governor requested cooperate bring about result; can bring mes¬ 
sage to-morrow. 


Washington, D. C., May 25. 

William Lorimer. 

St. Nicholas Hotel, Springfield, III.: 

Leaving for Chicago to-day; can go direct to Springfield. Bring message confirm¬ 
ing conference held last night, showing highest authorities want you elected before 
legislature adjourns. Important Republican Party Illinois politics have strong, 
experienced man, friendly to powers here, elected immediately; needed here now. 
Telegraph answer quick, duplicate, care limited train, Harrisburg depot. 

In both of which messages, as will be observed, he refers to a con¬ 
ference held the night before. 

These conferences between Mr. Hines and Senators Aldrich and 
Penrose impressed Mr. Hines with the importance of the matters 
under discussion as well as the importance of his activities in con¬ 
nection with them. He understood that in the investigations and 
reports which he made to them he was carrying out their wishes, 
that in the end they had reached the conclusion that Mr. Lorimer 
was the only person upon whom the different factions of the legisla¬ 
ture could unite, and they were anxious that he should not only 
consent to become a candidate but that he should use his best efforts 
to be elected. In these conferences Gov. Deneen’s name had been 
mentioned as an important factor in the election of a Senator, and 
Mr. Hines understood, after his last interview with Senator Aldrich 
at the latter’s house, that he was authorized to convey to Mr. Lorimer 
the wishes of the Senators named, the attitude of the President as to 
his candidacy, and to urge Gov. Deneen to aid in his election. The 
telegrams indicate his understanding of the situation and of his mis¬ 
sion, and he understood that in carrying this message he was repre¬ 
senting the gentlemen with whom he had been in conference, and that 
he was authorized to refer anyone wishing for further information 
as to their attitude or that of the President to Senator Aldrich. 








ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


29 


Mr. Hines was very much impressed with the importance of his 
selection as the medium through whom this message was to be carried 
to Illinois, and he entered with zeal upon the undertaking. 

The evidence indicates that Senators Aldrich and Penrose were the 
only persons with whom Mr. Hines was working or cooperating in the 
effort to break the deadlock in the Illinois Legislature by the election 
of a Republican Senator; that the only real interest he had in the 
matter was aroused by his frequent interviews with those gentlemen; 
the evidence also shows that neither he nor they had anv candidate 
whom they specially cared to have elected—any Republican would 
have been satisfactory, and their purpose was to discover some person 
upon whom the different factions in the legislature would unite, and 
to that end they called upon Mr. Hines for assistance. Concerning 
this, Senator Penrose in his testimony says: 

If Mr. Hines had been staying at home and attending to his business in Chicago, and 
the tariff had not been up, and he had never seen me or a lot of people who were inter¬ 
ested in politics night and day, I do not imagine he would ever have gotten interested 
in the senatorial fight. (Penrose, 1801.) 

Mr. Hines left Washington on May 25, 1909, and reached Chicago 
between 8 and 9 o’clock on the morning of May 26, 1909. It had 
been his intention to continue the journey to Springfield, in order as 
he testified— 

to carry out the request made by Senator Aldrich and see the governor and see other 
leading Republicans, members of the legislature, to impress upon their minds the im¬ 
portance of trying to unite on some Republican as Senator from Illinois. (Hines, 832.) 

But upon reaching Chicago he was met at the station by Mr. Wiehe 
(Hines, 832; Baker, 1476) with a message from Mr. Lorimer to call the 
latter on the telephone from Chicago instead of continuing his journey 
to Springfield as intended. Mr. Hines therefore proceeded at once to 
the Continental Commercial National Bank, and from there put in a 
long-distance telephone call for Mr. Lorimer at Springfield. (832.) 
While waiting for this connection, he sent from the bank the following 
telegram: 

Chicago, May 26, 1909. 

William Lorimer, Esq., Springfield, III .: 

Just arrived; trying to get you telephone; Aldrich, Penrose, and higher authority, as 
telephoned you from Washington, want you elected; authorized have governor others 
call Washington telephone; confirm this;" can be there to-night. 

Edward Hines. 

(Hines, 833.) 

Very soon thereafter Mr. Lorimer called him on the telephone and 
said: 

I would like to have you immediately call up Gov. Deneen on the long-distance 
telephone, and emphasize to him as strong as possible what you told me from Washing¬ 
ton. * * * When you get through talking with Gov. Deneen, call me up on the 
telephone and let me know what he says. (834.) 

Referring to this telephonic conversation with Mr. Hines, Senator 
Lorimer in his testimony says: 

I told him that the reason I did not want him to go to Springfield was that the 
governor was not friendly to my candidacy, and that if he came down to deliver the 
message it would be too late before he arrived, but probably if he delivered the message 
to him over the long-distance telephone it might have some influence with him. 
I had not any idea in the world that it would, but I feel when you are in a campaign 
you ought to do the last thing, and in his case it was the last thing. (Lorimer, 7464.) 


30 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER 


Mr. Hines testified that he also called up Gov. Deneen from the 
bank (Hines, 834; Carroll, 1015-1017, 1030) and said, as he remem¬ 
bers the conversation: 

This is Mr. Edward Hines, at Chicago. I have just come in this morning on the 
limited train from Washington, and was on my way to Springfield to bring the message 
to you from Senator Aldrich and the President, urging upon you to do all you possibly 
can to assist in the election of a Senator at the earliest moment possible. They under¬ 
stand that Congressman Lorimer can be elected if you will assist. (Hines, 834.) 

Mr. Hines testified that the governor did not seem to recognize his 
voice at first, and there was some suggestion of calling Mr. Reynolds, 
president of the bank, to identify him, but that finally the governor 
appeared to recognize his voice and said that would be unnecessary 
(835), and, continuing his conversation, Mr. Hines said then to him, 
“How soon can you see Congressman Lorimer ?” (835); that the 
governor replied, “I will see him within 10 minutes,” (835); and then 
Mr. Hines asked him the following question, “Can we rely on your 
assistance,” (835) and understood the governor to say, “Yes.” 

In regard to this Gov. Deneen testified: 

Mr. Hines called me up and asked me whether I had received a message from the 
President—President Taft—in reference to Senator Lorimer. He stated that President 
'Taft had sent a message to me to support Senator Lorimer, and asked me if I had re¬ 
ceived the message. I told him no. He said: ‘‘Well, President Taft has sent the mes¬ 
sage, and I intended to come down myself. I have just arrived, this morning, in Chi¬ 
cago;” and my best recollection is that he stated that his train was late, had a five- 
minutes’ connection, and the Pennsylvania train had missed connections. But, in 
any event, he said that he had intended to come, and did not come, could not come; 
and he said President Taft had sent that message to me, and I would get it. I said: 
“Did President Taft send that message to me? Did he tell you?” He said, “No.” 
I said, “That is a rather remarkable message to send.” He said, “Well, he is to 
send it through Senator Aldrich.” He said, “Of course, the President would not 
send a message to you on such a matter where it would become a public matter; but 
Senator Aldrich is to convey the message to you.” I said, “Through whom?” He 
said, “Mr. George Reynolds, of the Continental Commercial Bank, will call up and 
deliver the message.” I said, “Very well.” (Deneen, 1147.) 

Gov. Deneen says he did not tell Mr. Hines that he would see 
Mr. Lorimer within a few minutes, or within 10 minutes (1148), 
and says there was nothing in regard to calling Mr. Reynolds to 
identify his voice; that he was not sufficiently acquamted with 
him to recognize Mr. Hines’s voice, and doubted personally, whether 
Mr. Hines was telephoning (1148.) 

While they differ regarding many things which it is claimed were 
said during this conversation, which is easily accounted for by the 
difficulty attending a long distance telephone conversation, they 
both agree that no reference whatever was made to money matters, 
and that Mr. Hines said nothing about going to Springfield and taking 
with him all the money that was necessary to bring about the election 
of Mr. Lorimer as testified by the witness Cook. (Deneen, 1148.) 
Gov. Deneen testified that on May 26, 1909, he did not see or com¬ 
municate in any way with Mr. Lorimer until after his election, when 
the latter called upon him about 2 o’clock. (Deneen, 1148.) 

On the contrary, Senator Lorimer testified that Gov. Deneen 
called him on the telephone on the morning of May 26, 1909 (7459, 
7464), and said: 

That he had talked with Mr. Hines over the telephone, and that Mr. Hines had 
delivered a message to him to the effect that Senators Penrose and Aldrich and the 
President were anxious that I should be elected. (7464.) 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


31 


And in answer to the question: “What response did you make/* 
Senator Lorimer testified: 

I thanked him for it. I knew the interview Mr. Hines had had with the governor 
had had no influence with him. (7464.) 

And Senator Lorimer says in his testimony that the only reason 
he did not desire Mr. Hines to go to Springfield was because he could 
not reach there in time, he having concluded to allow his name to be 
presented that day (7464), and he understood the only assistance Mr. 
Hines could render was to deliver the message (7464); that the gov¬ 
ernor made no comment with reference to the message, and in this 
respect testified. Mr. Lorimer testified: 

I thought the governor just delivered a message. I got an impression that the gov¬ 
ernor either felt that it was his duty to call me up and let me know, or that he had 
been requested to call me up and let me know, what had occurred. (7465.) 

Senator Lorimer further testified that up to the night of May 25, 
1909, he had not been advised that the President or Senators Aldrich 
or Penrose had authorized anyone to verify their support, or their 
desire in regard to having a Republican elected. (7466.) Senator 
Lorimer further testified that he got the impression from the way 
Gov. Deneen talked to him over the telephone on the morning of 
May 26, 1909, that he was— 

just doing what he regarded as a duty, or extending a courtesy to the person he had 
previously spoken to over the telephone. 

He did not commit himself; and I knew from the way he talked that the message 
had no influence over the governor. (7467.) 

Senator Lorimer testified to a subsequent conversation with Mr. 
Hines as follows: 

I talked with him over the telephone—quite a while after that, and told him the 
governor had told me of the message that he delivered to him. When I say “quite a 
little while after that,” I mean it may have been 10, or 15, or 20 minutes. (7467.) 

After his telephonic conversation with Gov. Deneen from tho 
Continental Commercial National Bank, Mr. Hines went to the Grand 
Pacific Hotel to meet Messrs. Cook and O’Brien upon a purely business 
matter, which meeting had been arranged by his subordinates (835), 
and while in Mr. Cook’s room had a second conversation with Mr. 
Lorimer over the telephone, in which he said in substance: 

I have just talked with the governor, and he said he would see you immediately. 
The Congressman replied, “He has already seen me.” I then said, “Now, if I can 
do any good I will come down on the afternoon train.” He replied not to come down 
until he would telephone me. He said, ‘ ‘ If my name goes before the legislature to-day, 
you could not assist any in time to come here. If you could assist to-morrow, I will 
let you know late in the afternoon bv telephone.” (Hines, 836; Baker, 1429, 1479; 
Wiehe, 1749; Carroll, 1028-1030.) 

At this point the activities of Edward Hines in connection with the 
election of William Lorimer ceased. He did not go to Springfield, 
and the only person whose action he attempted to influence was Gov/ 
Deneen, and in doing that he simply undertook to deliver what he 
understood to be the message from Senators Aldrich and Penrose. 

The significant facts brought out bv all the testimony upon the 
question of Mr. Hines’s connection with Mr. Lorimer’s election are: 

(а) That he had no special personal interest in the matter, and did 
not visit Springfield at any time during the session of the Legislature. 

(б) That he was not urging the candidacy of any particular person. 

S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2-3 


32 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


(c) That during the two months in which the situation in Illinois 
was discussed between him and Senators Aldrich and Penrose the 
names of several men of reputation and character were considered 
and dropped, and the name of Mr. Lorimer was not mentioned 
between them as a candidate until three or four days before his elec¬ 
tion, and not until after his probable candidacy had been under dis¬ 
cussion in Springfield and it was believed there that he would become a 
candidate. It was practically certain Hopkins could not be elected. 

(d) That the only object entertained by Messrs. Aldrich and Pen¬ 
rose was to have the deadlock broken and a Republican elected. 

(e) That to accomplish this Mr. Lorimer was not objectionable as 
& candidate either to the President or to them, and various names 
had been tested and it was found that Mr. Lorimer could command 
more votes than any one considered. 

(f) That Mr. Hines was authorized and requested to report these 
facts to Mr. Lorimer, Gov. Deneen, and other public men, and to 
refer to both Senators Aldrich and Penrose as his authority. 

( g ) That it flattered Mr. Hines to be consulted by Senators Aldrich 
and Penrose, and his sense of the importance of the matter was 
greatly enhanced when he knew that they had been in conference with 
the President, and that Mr. Lorimer’s candidacy would not be objec¬ 
tionable to him, and that to be intrusted with the responsibility of 
making known their wishes and explaining the attitude of the Presi¬ 
dent to Gov. Deneen and to Mr. Lorimer was a great personal honor. 

{h) That he believed when the election followed so closely these 
events that he had been instrumental in bringing it about and was 
correspondingly elated. 

The only testimony before the committee that in any way con¬ 
nects the name of Edward Tilden with the alleged fund raised to aid 
in the election of William Lorimer is incorporated in the statement 
reluctantly made by Mr. Funk when he says: “Mr. Hines said, Must 
send the money to Ed. Tilden. 7 77 Not a witness has testified to any 
fact tending to establish the existence of such a fund or to Mr. Tilden 7 s 
-connection with any such fund. But the committee saw fit to sum¬ 
mon Mr. Tilden as a witness and in his testimony he denied with 
great emphasis any knowledge of the existence of such a fund, or 
having any connection with it, and stated that the first time he heard 
his name mentioned in that respect was when he read in the news¬ 
papers an account of Mr. Funk’s testimony before the Helm com¬ 
mittee at Springfield. 

To further determine the question whether Mr. Hines had been a 
contributor to or had any part in it, and whether Mr. Tilden had 
received or disbursed the same, the committee employed the firm of 
Barrow, Wade, Guthrie & Co., certified public accountants of New 
York. Mr. Ritchie of that firm made an examination of the accounts 
of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. and all its subsidiary branches and 
of the companies controlled by it, including the North Wisconsin Lum¬ 
ber & Manufacturing Co.; Hayward Mercantile Co.; First National 
Bank, Hayward, Wis.; Mason State Bank, Mason; White River Lum¬ 
ber Co.; Iron River Lumber Co.; Virginia & Rainy Lake Co., covering 
the period from April 1, 1909, to December 31, 1909, as well as the 
personal books of Edward Hmes for the year ending December 31, 
1909, and reported to the committee as follows: 

(a) That there was no evidence of the Edward Hines Lumber Co. or any of its 
Subsidiary or controlled companies having received or disbursed any moneys in 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 33 

connection with the election of Mr. William Lorimer, on May 26, 1909, to the United 
States Senate from the State of Illinois. 

( b) That there was no evidence of Mr. Edward Hines as an individual having 
received or disbursed any moneys in connection with the aforesaid election. 

In order to ascertain whether or not Mr. Hines might have negotiated a loan from 
one or other of the banks in Chicago with which he was connected, or with which 
he had business relations, I visted the following banks and trust companies: Conti¬ 
nental National Bank, Hibernian Banking Association, Fort Dearborn National 
Bank, Northern Trust Co., Corn Exchange National Bank, Metropolitan Trust & 
Savings Bank. 

At each of these banks I examined their record of notes discounted during the 
last week in May, 1909, and the first part of June, 1909. 

I am able to report, therefore, that at none of these banks, in the period under 
review, did Mr. Hines discount any note or notes, either as drawer or as indorser. 

An examination was also made of the books of Mr. Edward Tilden, 
and after reciting the method of the same and the theory upon 
which it was conducted, Mr. Ritchie reported to the committee that— 

There was no evidence that Mr. Tilden had been custodian of the fund alleged to 
have been raised in connection with the election of Mr. William Lorimer to the United 
States Senate from the State of Illinois. (6233.) 

THE BURGESS-WIEHE INCIDENT. 

The only other incident to which reference is made in the so-called 
newly discovered evidence tending to show the existence of a fund 
raised to aid in the election of Mr. Lorimer is that related by William 
M. Burgess, of Duluth, Minn., who testified that on the evening of 
March 8, 1911, he boarded the Winnipeg Flyer at Duluth at about 
10 minutes past 7 o'clock to go to Virginia, Minn., a run of about two 
hours (1335); that when he boarded the train he went to the smok¬ 
ing room of the sleeping car, where he remained until he reached his 
destination (1335); that during that time the compartment was occu¬ 
pied by others as well as himself, among them Mr. C. F. Wiehe, Mr. 
Johnson, Mr. Cusson, Frederick J. Weyerhaeuser, Rudolph Weyer¬ 
haeuser, Mr. Harper, and Mr. McGowan, whom he described as a 
“young Canadian," and with whom he had some conversation (1335). 
The testimony of Mr. Burgess indicates that all of these gentlemen 
were in the compartment “at various times during the trip" (1335), 
and that at some period of the ride, when only the witness, Mr. Mc¬ 
Gowan, and Mr. Wiehe were present, the conversation between him¬ 
self and the latter drifted onto the subject of Mr. Lorimer's election, 
concerning which the witness said: 

I remember making some remark regarding the election of Mr. Lorimer, and Mr. 
Wiehe asked me what I knew about Mr. Lorimer’s election, and I told him my knowl¬ 
edge consisted of information gained from the Duluth News-Tribune and the Duluth 
Evening Herald and the Chicago Examiner. And he made the remark that I did 
not know very damn much about it. * * * * He said that Mr. Lorimer had not 
spent any of his own money for his election; but there was, as he called it, a jack 
pot raised for Mr. Lorimer’s election; and he made the remark—this remark he made 
at the fftiish of the conversation—he says: “There was a jack pot raised for Mr. Lori¬ 
mer’s election. I know what I am talking about, because I subscribed $10,000 to it 
myself.” (1336.) 

And further: 

Mr. Wiehe said it was impossible to get anything of merit through the Illinois Leg¬ 
islature without the use of money. (1337.) 

Mr. Burgess, Mr. Wiehe, and Mr. McGowan were all absolute 
strangers to each other; they had never met before; had no introduc¬ 
tion at that time, and were ignorant of each other's names. It was 


34 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


not until after reaching the hotel at Virginia that night that Mr. Bur¬ 
gess learned that the gentleman with whom he says he had this con¬ 
versation was Mr. Wiehe, a brother-in-law of Edward Hines. 

Mr. Burgess had never had any business relations with the Edward 
Hines Lumber Co. except once, in 1906, concerning which he testified 
as follows: 

The Edward Hines Lumber Co. had banked a certain quantity of pine logs on the 
Black River, which is about 10 or 11 miles south of West Superior, and that portion 
of the Black River was controlled by the Black River Water Power Co., of which I 
was secretary and treasurer. On the land that we own there are two falls, one of 55 
feet and one of 190 feet, and there is a dam at the top of the highest fall. This dam 
was built there by some company prior to our obtaining the fee of the land. The 
Edward Hines Lumber Co. were going to use the dam to float those logs out, and 
our man that looks after the property over there notified us that they were going to 
use the dam. I notified Mr. Cusson that the using of that dam was worth a certain 
sum. 

Mr. Hynes. How much? 

Mr. Burgess. At the first conversation I told him I did not know what it was 
worth; that it was something I knew nothing about; that I would notify Mr. Sar- 
geant, who knew more about that business. 

Mr. Hynes. What did you do? 

Mr. Burgess. Mr. Sargeant told me to ask him $150, and to get all I could—not less 
than $25. 

Mr. Hynes. Not less than $25? How much did you ask? 

Mr. Burgess. I asked $150. 

Mr. Hynes. Is that all? 

Mr. Burgess. That is all. 

Mr. Hynes. Was it not $250? 

Mr. Burgess. Well, it might have been. It was a long time ago. My recollection 
is $150, but it might have been $250. 

Mr. Hynes. To get $250 if you could get it, and to take $25 if you could not? 

Mr. Burgess. Yes; I was following Mr. Sargeant’s advice, and he knew more about 
it than I did. I think we got $75. 

Mr. Hynes. That was his advice, to ask that amount and take $25 if you could not 
get the other? 

Mr. Burgess. Yes; that was it exactly. 

Mr. Hynes. That was his idea of the value of it? 

Mr. Burgess. Yes. 

Mr. Hynes. Did you at any time ask him $1,000? Think before you answer. 

Mr. Burgess. Oh, I do not know. 

Mr. Hynes. You do not know whether you did? 

Mr. Burgess. No; I do not know whether I did or not. 

Mr. Hynes. Did you at one time talk about $2,500? 

Mr. Burgess. No; I do not think it was that bad; I do not know. 

Mr. Hynes. You do not think it .was any worse than a thousand? 

Mr. Burgess. I do not know. I do not remember; that is, I can not remember the 
details. It is quite a while ago. I should say it was 8 or 10 years ago. I could not 
give the dates, even. 

Mr. Hynes. When you say it was not that bad, in what sense do you use that word 
“bad”? 

Mr. Burgess. If I had asked $1,000, that would have been extremely gaily, that 
is all. 

Mr. Hynes. That would depend upon the supply of gall on hand, would it not, 
whether it was extreme or not? What were you finally paid? 

Mr. Burgess. I think it was $75. 

The evidence shows that the controversy over the amount to be 
paid extended from early in May, 1906, until the 27th of July, 
following, and letters from the Hines Lumber Co. to their agent 
authorizing a settlement of the claim indicate that Burgess had, in 
fact, demanded $2,500. 

Mr. Wiehe denies with great positiveness that any such conversa¬ 
tion as mentioned by Mr. Burgess was had between them, and de¬ 
nounced him as “an absolute liar when he makes the statement.” 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


35 


(1643-1645.) He further testified that he had no conversation with 
Mr. Burgess regarding the Lorimer election, or about any jack pot or 
any other fund to be used in connection with such election, or con¬ 
cerning any contribution by him to such a fund (1643) and that he 
did not have any specific conversation with Mr. Burgess. (1642, 
1645, 1760.) 

The testimony shows that at the time of the alleged conversation 
Mr. Burgess sat diagonally across the compartment from Mr. Wiehe 
(1642) and that no conversation could have been had with him which 
others there would not have heard. 

It is admitted that Charles McGowan did not leave the room during 
that ride; he testified, “I was there all the time” (1489, 1513-1516) 
and heard every word that was said by everyone (1493) and testified 
that nothing was said that he did not hear; (1496) he denies with 
positiveness the entire Burgess story, further testifying that there 
was no time during the entire trip when he, Mr. Wiehe, and Mr. Bur¬ 
gess were alone in that compartment (1491), and that there was noth¬ 
ing whatever said about Mr. Lorimer’s election (1489-1490). 

Mr. Cusson testified that he entered the smoking compartment 
about 20 minutes after the train left Duluth, and remained there until 
Virginia was reached (1604); that Mr. Burgess, Mr. Johnson, Mr. F. 
E. Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Wiehe, and one or two or three strangers were 
in the compartment when he entered; that he sat between Mr. 
Wiehe and Mr. Weyerhaeuser on the leather couch; that Mr. Wiehe 
sat on his left (1604) and that Mr. Burgess sat in a chair directly to 
the right of the couch (1605); that Mr. Wiehe remained in the 
smoking compartment possibly 15 minutes after his entrance, when 
he was called out by Mr. Hines, and that he did not again return to 
the compartment that night (1605). 

Mr. Cusson remembers that among other topics of conversation 
was the tariff and Canadian reciprocity, but that nothing was said 
about the election of Senator Lorimer, and he denies in detail the 
statements contained in the testimony of Mr. Burgess as to the 
Lorimer case; that nothing of the character was said; that he sat 
right next to Mr. Wiehe, and not to exceed 2.oi 3 feet from Mr. Bur¬ 
gess. (1606.) 

Mr. Johnson, a most intelligent witness, testified that he entered 
the smoking compartment soon after the train left Duluth (1522); 
that Mr. Wiehe he thinks came in after he did; that he remained in 
the compartment during all the time Mr. Wiehe was there, and 
followed him when he went out, as he desired to discuss a matter of 
business with him; that during the time he was in the compartment 
nothing was said by either Mr Wiehe or Mr. Burgess with respect 
to the election of Senator Lonmer, nor about the existence of a jack 

E ot or any fund of $100,000 being raised for the election of Senator 
lorimer, or about any other amount of money being raised to aid the 
election of Senator Lorimer, and that Mr. Wiehe did not say that he 
had contributed to any such fund; in short, he denied everything to 
which Mr. Burgess testified. (1523, 1524, 1542, 1544-1546, 1549.) 

Mr. Price testified that upon entering the train he carried his 
grip to his berth and immediately went to the smoking compartment 
(1551) where he remained for perhaps half an hour, when he went out 
to look after his grip, and was gone just long enough to go to his seat 
in the other car and return; that he then remained in the smoking 


36 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


compartment until 10 or 15 minutes before the train reached Virginia; 
that when he went out to look after his grip Mr. Burgess, Mr. Johnson, 
and Mr. McGowan were in the smoking compartment, and he tells 
where and how they were sitting. He thinks Mr. Weyerhaeuser was 
sitting with Mr. Cusson immediately next to him, and that when he 
returned Mr. Wiehe had taken his seat, and that he was obliged to 
stand for some time and until Mr. Wiehe was called from the room 
by Mr. Hines. (1551.) This is confirmed by Mr. McGowan, who 
testified that Mr. Wiehe was called out by Mr. Hines. (1489.) 

In his testimony Mr. Price tells of other subjects which , were 
discussed, but says nothing was said by any person present regarding 
the election of Senator Lorimer, and denies everything that has 
been testified to by Mr. Burgess as having occurred on that occasions 
(1552-1553.) 

Mr. Harper, who was also present and observed those in the com¬ 
partment, heard no such conversation. (2240-2241.) 

Mr. Wiehe is not a talkative man. He appears rather cautious 
It is not reasonable to suppose that he would declare to a stranger 
who happened to be in the same smoker on a railway train that he 
had contributed to a corruption fund which had been used in the elec¬ 
tion of a Senator from his State. He is not a light or foolish man, and 
the committee is unable to ignore his testimony and that of all the 
other persons in the smoker, aside from Mr. Burgess, and accept the 
latter as the only truthful one among them. 

Mr. Burgess’s story, as set forth in his letter to Mr. Kohlsaat 
(Record, 1787) which follows, varies materially from his testimony. 
He appears anxious to get into the controversy, and his account of 
what occurred in the smoker is as improbable as his “hearsay” 
regarding the telegram from President Taft. Mr. Wiehe had not 
then heard of the Father Green episode referred to, and could not 
have mentioned it. 

Duluth, Minn., April 10, 1911. 

Mr. H. H. Kohlsaat, 

Care of Chicago Record-Herald, Chicago, III. 

Dear Sir: The writer has been following up the various items in the papers regard 
ing the. Kohlsaat-McCormick-Lorimer scandal, or, I should have said, the Hines- 
McCormick-Lorimer scandal. 

The writer is somewhat interested in this controversy. The writer also notices that 
Mr. Hines denies the statements made by the representatives of Mr. McCormick’s 
interests, and that is what interests the writer. He will explain. 

On the night of March 6 a train leaving Duluth at 7 o’clock for Virginia, Minn., con¬ 
tained the writer; Mr. Hines, of Chicago; three gentlemen by the name of Weyer¬ 
haeuser; Mr. Hornby, of Cloquet; W. H. Cook, William O’Brien, and others. As the 
train left Duluth the writer was sitting in the smoking compartment of the Winnipeg 
sleeper. A gentleman entered the smoking compartment dressed in a gray suit of 
clothes, black stiff hat, and wore a black beard. Conversation started among the 
occupants of the smoker. After a while conversation drifted over to politics, and Mr. 
Lorimer’s name was mentioned. The writer made some uncomplimentary remarks 
regarding Mr. Lorimer and the way his actions were being whitewashed by the Senate, 
and the gentleman in gray clothes and black whiskers called the writer to account 
regarding his remarks. The writer stuck to his ground, and the gentleman in gray 
defended Mr. Lorimer in the strongest kind of language. Now, what I want to get at in 
as few words as possible is, this gentleman made the statement, among other things that 
were said during the controversy, that Mr. Lorimer did not spend any of his own money 
to elect himself, but that there was a large jack pot raised to elect Mr. Lorimer, of which 
he, the man with the black whiskers, subscribed $10,000 to the fund. 

He made the statement that there couldn’t any measure, either of merit or not, be 
gotten through the Illinois Legislature without the use of money, and that in order to 
elect Lorimer that they had to raise a large jack pot, which he called it, of which the 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 37 

man of the black whiskers subscribed $10,000, or, in other words, he of the black 
whiskers gave $10,000 in cold cash toward the electing of Mr. Lorimer. 

The writer afterwards learned that the man of the black whiskers was a Mr. Wiehe,. 
I think, and that he is a brother-in-law of Edward Hines. The train arrived at Vir¬ 
ginia that night at 9.10 o’clock, and about 10 o’clock the writer met Mr. W. T. 
Bailey in the hotel at Virginia and asked who the man in the gray suit and black 
whiskers was, and Mr. Bailey informed me that he was Mr. Wiehe, a brother-in-law 
of Mr. Edward Hines; I think that is the way the name is spelled, but I am not posi¬ 
tive. The writer then told Mr. Bailey what the conversation had been on the train 
with the man of the black whiskers. 

I think there is more information to be gotten in Duluth regarding the Hines-Lori- 
mer controversy should you desire it. There is a gentleman in Duluth who was in 
Mr. Hines’s office some time ago—that is, during the investigation of the Senate of 
Mr. Lorimer’s election—when a telegram was received from President Taft by Mr. 
Hines regarding this investigation. The writer has been told that this telegram re¬ 
quested Mr. Hines to get the matter hushed up as quickly as possible. This infor¬ 
mation regarding the telegram is only hearsay on the writer’s part, but I think that 
the writer can get this information should you desire it. 

If this letter is of any use to you and the information contained in this letter of any 
use to you, kindly let the writer know, but the writer does not care to have it known 
that he has written you this letter, although he stands ready to make good all state¬ 
ments. 

Yours, truly, Wm. Burgess. 

With the foregoing convincing array of evidence in denial of all 
the facts contained in Mr. Burgess’s testimony, and in view of the 
improbability that a man of Mr. Wiehe’s intelligence and business 
experience should, in a public place and to an utter stranger, have 
confessed to having part in an infamous proceeding, this committee 
can not do otherwise than discard the testimony of Mr. Burgess as 
proof of any facts alleged. 

ATTEMPT TO IMPEACH McGOWAN. 

Mr. McGowan testified before this committee on July 18, 1911. 
Immediately thereafter Mr. Beck, one of the editors of the Chicago 
Tribune, conveyed information to counsel for the committee to the 
effect that one Stewart, a friend of Mr. McGowan, had made loose 
statements as to the latter’s purpose in appearing before the com¬ 
mittee, and counsel employed the Burns Detective Agency to inves¬ 
tigate the situation and ascertain whether his testimony was im¬ 
peachable. 

An investigator of that company, Arthur C. Bailey, was, on July 20, 
1911 (8020), assigned to the work, and followed Mr. McGowan to 
Saskatchewan, Canada, where he met him at the Grand Hotel, Regina, 
on August 7, 1911, «and adopted all the typical methods of detectives 
to get into confidential relations with him. He reported from time 
to time to counsel for this committee until October 24 or 25, 1911. 
At that time a bill for services and expenses amounting to $2,500 had 
been run up, and counsel reported to the committee then in session in 
Chicago that they were ''not getting anywhere,” that if they con¬ 
tinued that sort of service it would simply develop this condition of 
testimony; the statement of Mr. Bailey on the one hand, and a denial, 
perhaps, by Mr. McGowan on the other^ and it was their judgment that 
the service ought to be discontinued (7996). Counsel for the com¬ 
mittee assumed the entire responsibility for discontinuing the service 
at that time, saying, in a subsequent'statement, “It was upon our 
recommendation, with full knowledge of all that had transpired, so far 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


3S 

as the service of Mr. Bailey was concerned, that the service was 
discontinued’' (7997). 

Immediately thereafter the Burns Detective Agency was employed 
by the Chicago Tribune to further pursue such investigation, and such 
services culminated at a meeting between the witness McGowan, 
Detective Bailey, and one Kerr, whose expenses he paid (8056-8057, 
8143-8182) at the King Edward Hotel, Toronto, on the evening of 
January 6, 1912. A dictograph had been secreted in a room to which 
Mr. McGowan had been invited by Messrs. Bailey and Kerr, from 
which a wire with a telephonic receiver attached led to an adjoining 
room where one Sheridan, another employee of the Burns Agency, was 
stationed to take down in shorthand any conversation which might 
be had in the other room relative to the Lorimer case. This young 
man, James E. Sheridan, afterwards appeared as a witness before this 
committee, with his original shorthand notes claimed to have been 
taken on that occasion, which he read into the record. Doubt was 
expressed as to his ability to hear and write under the conditions 
described, and a test of his ability to do so was made by order of the 
committee. Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Bailey were permitted to make all 
the arrangements for the same, so as to reproduce as nearly as pos¬ 
sible the conditions under which the work was done in Toronto. 
They used the same instruments and expressed themselves as satisfied 
with conditions, but the results were so disastrous to the claims made 
by Mr. Sheridan in his testimony as to satisfy the committee that no 
dependence whatever can be placed upon his testimony. 

As before stated, the so-called newly discovered evidence on which 
this investigation was ordered consisted of the alleged declaration of 
Edward Hines to Clarence S. Funk on May 27, 1909, and an alleged 
declaration by Mr. Wiehe to Mr. Burgess on a railway journey from 
Duluth to Virginia, Minn., on March 8, 1912, hereinbefore fully set 
forth. 

The committee has in its investigations secured all available evi¬ 
dence bearing both upon the question whether such declarations were 
in fact made, as claimed by Mr. Funk and Mr. Burgess, and whether 
the fund mentioned in such alleged declarations was in fact raised 
and used as alleged, and having considered such evidence finds noth¬ 
ing in it which in any degree sustains the assumption that such a fund 
ever existed or that either Edward Hines or C. F. Wiehe ever had any 
knowledge of such a fund. 

FORMER ADJUDICATION CONCLUSIVE. 

Before the public hearings in this case closed counsel for Mr. Lorimer 
raised the contention that all of the issues relating to the election and 
qualifications of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States 
from the State of Illinois had been adjudicated and finally de¬ 
termined by the Senate of the United States by its action on the 
1st day of March, 1911; that such former adjudication and final 
determination of the issues was in law and justice a bar to any 
further proceedings designed to call in question the validity and legal¬ 
ity of the election of Mr. Lorimer and his right to his seat in the Senate. 

Your committee is of the opinion that all such issues touching the 
election and qualifications of William Lorimer were so finally adju¬ 
dicated, and that the action of the Senate on the 1st day of March, 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


39 


1911, recognizing the right of Mr. Lorimer to retain his seat in the 
Senate of the United States is a bar to any further proceedings in 
the Senate. 

Upon this question the committee invites attention to— 

THE JUDICIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROCEEDING. 

Article I, section 5, of the Constitution of the United States pro¬ 
vides that— 

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own 
Members. 

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for 
disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. 

Article I, section 3, of the. Constitution provides that the Senate 
shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. And Article II, 
section 4, enumerates as the persons subject to impeachment the 
President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States. 

All these functions are judicial in character. The authorities are 
numerous in support of the proposition that the determination by 
the Senate of the election and qualification of the Members is an 
exercise of a judicial function. 

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries on the Law, said: 

Each House is made the sole judge of the election, return and qualification of its 
Members. The same power is vested in the British House of Commons, and in the 
legislature of the several States, and there is no other body known to the Constitution 
to which such a power might safely be trusted. It is requisite to preserve a pure and 
genuine representation, and to control the evils of irregular, corrupt, and tumultuous 
elections; and, as each House acts in these cases in a judicial character, its decisions, 
like the decisions of any other court of justice, ought to be regulated by known 
principles of law and strictly adhered to for the sake of uniformity and certainty. 
(1 Kent’s Commentaries, p. 235.) 

Judge Cooley said: 

In determining questions concerning contested seats the House will exercise judi¬ 
cial power, but generally in accordance with a course of practice which has sprung 
from precedents in similar cases. (Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations, 190.) 

The occasional intermixture of legislative and judicial powers in the Senate is not 
objectionable as in violation of the Montesquieu maxim on the necessity of a sepa¬ 
ration of legislative, judicial, and executive functions. (1 Story on the Const., sec. 
749; Madison, The Federalist, No. XLVII; Webster’s speech in the Senate, May 7, 
1834.) 

The Supreme Court of the United States has expressly decided that 
each House of Congress is exercising judicial power vested in it by the 
Constitution when it is judging of the elections of its Members, (in re 
Loney, 134 U. S., 372; Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168.) 

See, also, the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in State of 
Florida ex rel. Fleming, governor, v. Crawford, secretary of state (28 
Fla., 441; 14 L. R. A., 253), where the court said: 

Neither the secretary of state nor the Supreme Court of Florida has power to pass 
upon the legality of an election of a United States Senator by the legislature, or of 
an appointment of a Senator by the executive of the State. The power is in the 
United States Senate alone. 

The supreme courts of various States have decided that each House 
in deciding as to the validity of elections acts in a purely judicial 
capacity. (People ex rel. Hatzel v. Hall, 80 N. Y., 317; People ex 
reL Mahaney, 13 Mich., 481; State ex rel. Benton v. Elder, 31 Nebr., 
169, 191; The opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of Maine, 7 


40 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Me., 481, 491; the opinion of the justices of the Supreme Court of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, 10 Gray, 613, are to the same effect.) 

The Senate itself has frequently declared, through its committees 
and by its decisions, that the power to judge of the elections of its 
members is a judicial power and is to be exercised in accordance with 
known principles of law and established precedents. 

In the election case of Matt W. Ransom v. Joseph C. Abbott in the 
Forty-second Congress, the majority of the Committee on Privileges 
and Elections, consisting of Senators O. P. Morton, John A. Logan, 
A. G. Thurman, and Joshua Hill, said in their report, after quoting the 
provision of the Constitution as to each House being the judge of the 
elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members: 

The duty which devolves upon the Senate in deciding cases that arise under this 
clause of the Constitution is in the nature of a judicial proceeding, and the cases must 
be decided upon the evidence presented, and in accordance with legal principles, as 
established by former parliamentary and judicial proceedings and decisions. 

The minority of the committee in that case, consisting of Senators 
Matt H. Carpenter and B. F. Rice, said: 

The duty cast upon the Senate by this provision of the Constitution is judicial in 
character. We may not inquire or consider what party interests demand; whether it 
would appear impartial to decide against a political friend, or whether a decision in his 
favor would be condemned in political circles. The question to be determined is one 
of strict right, depending upon legal principles, as settled by former decisions, parlia¬ 
mentary and judicial; and we have no more right than a judge upon the bench to turn 
away from the law to consider the political or partisan interests involved in the case 
or to be affected by the decision. (S. Repts., 2d sess. 42d Cong., No. 58.) 

To the same effect is the report of the committee in the case of 
Fitch and Bright v. Lane and McCarty in the Thirty-fifth Congress. 
(Rept. No. 368.) 

In the case of Henry A. du Pont, of Delaware, in the Fifty-fourth 
Congress, the Committee on Privileges and Elections unanimously 
said: 

It is clear that the word “judge” in the Constitution was used advisedly. The 
Senate in the case provided for is to declare a result depending upon the application 
of law to existing facts, and is not to be affected in its action by the desire of its Mem¬ 
bers or by their opinions as to public policies or public interest. Its action determines 
great constitutional rights—the title of an individual citizen to a high office and the 
title of a sovereign State to be represented in the Senate by the person of its choice. 

Senator Edmunds, in his remarks in discussing the election case 
of Senator Henry W. Blair, March 10, 1885, said: 

The Senate in sitting upon such a question sits as judges. The Constitution says 
so. We are not defining policies; we are not setting up expediencies; we are not 
carrying on party warfare; we are sitting as the solemn judges sworn to try and deter¬ 
mine the election and qualifications of a gentleman who presents himself to be a 
Member of this body. 

This proceeding can not be deemed in any sense a legislative pro¬ 
ceeding because exclusive jurisdiction of it is possessed by the Senate 
alone. The Senate alone is invested with no legislative power. In 
New York Indians v. United States (170 U. S., 1, p. 23) the Supreme 
Court of the United States said of a resolution adopted by the Senate 
alone: 

It can not be considered as a legislative act since the power to legislate is in the 
President, the Senate, and House of Representatives. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


41 


Consequently the decision of the questions raised by the resolution 
must depend upon legal principles and be in accordance with the 
evidence. In the language of the authorities from whom we have 
quoted, we can not consider party interests or expediency. We are 
sitting as the solemn judges sworn to try and judicially determine 
purely legal rights. The jury system is sometimes attacked because 
on occasions juries do not enforce the law. Mob violence is every¬ 
where deplored because by it the law is set at defiance. If Senators 
were unmindful of the law in settling this case their action would be 
a reproach, and an example for and encouragement of all forms of 
disobedience to law. 

Under all the authorities we have been able to find, the Senate acts 
in this matter in a judicial character and its decision is of the same 
nature as the decision of any regularly constituted court of justice, 
and has the same force and effect. We are here exercising a judicial 
function. This being true, the doctrine of res adjudicata applies in 
this case. 

THE QUESTION OF RES ADJUDICATA. 

One of the most elementary doctrines of the law, perhaps the one 
most universally accepted, is the doctrine of res adjudicata. Bigelow 
on Estoppel defines that doctrine as follows: 

The fundamental principle concerning judgments is that an issue once determined 
by a court of competent jurisdiction may be relied on as an effectual bar to any further 
dispute upon the same matter, whether by the parties to the litigation or by those who, 
termed privies, claim under them; this conclusiveness, including, of course, as well 
the law as the facts involved in the case. We speak of this as fundamental because 
it is the very object of the institution of courts to put an end to disputes “Interest 
reipublicae ut litium finis sit.” This is, of course, true under every system of justice; 
it is peculiar to none. It would therefore be wide of the truth to speak of the doctrine 
of judgments in the English law as derived from the principles of any other system of 
law. On the other hand, it would be arrogant and false to assert that the principles 
of the English law in regard to the effect of judgments had been wholly worked out 
from within, regardless of that great system of law which Rome developed and gave 
for an inheritance to most of the continental nations of Europe, and for a light to all 
the world. (I Bigelow on Estoppel, 37, 38.) 

Herman explains the fundamental reason on which the doctrine is 
based as follows: 

This rule of conclusiveness, this doctrine of estoppel is one of the most inflexible 
principles of law, and has its foundation in this fundamental principle, “Interest 
reipublicae ut sit finis litium.” When a cause of action is so far the same that a 
former judgment can be pleaded in bar, or when the matters in controversy in the suit 
can be shown by record evidence to have been examined and decided in another, 
there is every reason why that which has attained the highest degree of certainty 
known to the law should "not again be litigated between the same parties; for it con¬ 
cerns the peace and welfare of the community that there should be an end to litiga¬ 
tion. Justice requires that every cause should be once fairly tried, and the public 
tranquillity demands that having been once so fairly tried, all litigation of that ques¬ 
tion between those parties should be concluded forever. Were it otherwise, there 
would be no security for any person, and great injustice might be done under color 
and pretense of law. To ascertain the grounds and motives which may have led to 
the final determination of a question once settled by the jurisdiction to which the law 
has referred it, would be extremely dangerous, and it is better for the general admin¬ 
istration of justice, that one individual should be inconvenienced than that the whole 
system of jurisprudence be overthrown and endless uncertainty introduced. (I Her¬ 
man on Estoppel, sec. 100, p. 101.) 

The rule of res adjudicata is in force in every American court and 
in every governmental body or organization that performs, even 
though but incidentally, judicial functions. The Cyclopedia of Law 


42 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


and Procedure cites the following bodies, boards, and officers whose 
judgments have been held to constitute res adjudicata (vol. 23, pp. 
1219-1221): 

Courts-martial; church judicatories; Commissioner of Patents; 
Comptroller of the Currency; collector of customs; Board of Land 
Commissioners; road commissioners in adjudicating upon the neces¬ 
sity of a road and in locating and making assessments for it; the 
common council of a city in canvassing election returns; board of city 
police commissioners acting as a court for the trial of members of the 
police force. All these subordinate and merely quasi judicial agen¬ 
cies, and many others of similar character, are bound by the law of 
res adjudicata when they seek to review their former decisions in a 
matter involving the exercise of a judicial function. 

The Senate has held that the doctrine of res adjudicata is applicable 
to election cases and in numerous instances has enforced and applied 
that doctrine. 

The leading case is that of Senators Fitch and Bright and Lane and 
McCarty, of Indiana, in the Thirty-fourth and Thirty-fifth Congresses. 
In the Thirty-fourth Congress the election of Senators Fitch and 
Bright was assailed on the ground that the joint sessions of the two 
houses of the Indiana Legislature that elected Messrs. Fitch and Bright 
were illegally organized. At the first session of the Thirty-fifth 
Congress a resolution that Senators Fitch and Bright were not entitled 
to their seats was determined in the negative by a vote of yeas 23, 
nays 30, and the Senate then adopted a resolution that Senators 
Fitch and Bright were entitled to their seats. Some months later 
the Legislature of Indiana proceeded by a concurrent vote of the two 
houses to elect Henry S. Lane and William M. McCarty Senators 
from the State of Indiana. At the second session of the Thirty-fifth 
Congress there was presented to the United States Senate a memorial 
of the Legislature of Indiana representing that it was the wish and 
desire of the State that said Lane and McCarty be admitted to seats 
in the Senate as the only legally and constitutionally chosen Senators 
of the State of Indiana. This memorial was referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary. That committee, in a report concurred in by 
Senators Bayard, Pugh, Benjamin, Green, and Clingman, reported 
that, in its opinion, the resolution adopted at the first session of the 
Thirty-fifth Congress “ (no motion having been made to reconsider it) 
finally disposed of all questions presented to the Senate involving the 
respective rights of Hon. Graham N. Fitch and the Hon. Jesse D. 
Bright to their seats in the Senate as Senators from the State of 
Indiana.” In conclusion the committee said: 

The decision of the Senate, made on the 12th of June, 1858, established finally 
and (in the absence of a motion to reconsider) irreversibly the right of the Hon. Graham 
N. Fitch as a Senator of the State of Indiana until the 4th of March, 1861, and the 
right of the Hon. Jesse D. Bright as a Senator from the same State until the 4th of 
March, A. D. 1863. 

The decision was made by an authority having exclusive jurisdiction of the sub¬ 
ject; was judicial in its nature; and, being made on a contest in which all the facts 
and questions of law involving the validity of the election of Messrs. Fitch and Bright, 
and their respective rights to their seats, were as fully known and presented to the 
Senate as they are now in the memorial of the Legislature- of Indiana, the judgment 
of the Senate then rendered is final, and precludes further inquiry into the subject 
to which it relates. 

The report of the case (Buck Senate election cases, 244) shows 
that Messrs. McCarty and Lane submitted to the committee a brief 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM L0R1MER. 


48 


in which they argued that the doctrine of res adjudicata did not 
apply, for the lollowing alleged reasons: Because their rights or titles 
could not be barred by a decision had before they were created; 
because it was denied that the judicial power of the Senate was 
capable of self-exhaustion; because courts are never estopped by 
their own actions; because sovereigns are not estopped; and because 
Indiana was not a party to the proceeding in the Senate and had 
no opportunity to allege or elicit the true facts. The brief of the 
contestants was embodied in a report to the Senate. The question 
was debated at length in the Senate and finally the following resolu¬ 
tion was adopted by a vote—yeas 30, nays 15— 

Resolved , That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the 
memorial of the State of Indiana, and that the resolution of the Senate adopted June 
12, 1858, affirming the right of Graham N. Fitch and Jesse D. Bright as Senators elected 
from the State of Indiana, the former until the 4th day of March, 1861, and the latter 
until the 4th day of March, 1863, was a final decision of all the premises then in contro¬ 
versy, as conclusive, as well upon the Legislature of Indiana and all persons claiming 
under its authority as upon the Senators named in the resolution. 

Thus the Senate adopted the law of res adjudicata as applicable to 
such proceedings. The case reviewed was a contest between two differ¬ 
ent sets of persons claiming to be elected as Senators from a State. 
The rule of res adjudicata was applied even though the parties contest¬ 
ing the election had not been heard in the former proceeding, had not 
been parties to it. The theory of the decision of the Senate was, how¬ 
ever, that the contesting parties derived their claims from and through 
the Legislature of the State of Indiana and that the Legislature of the 
State of Indiana had been bound by the first decision. It is further 
to be noted that the decision of the Senate which was held to be res 
adjudicata was made at the same Congress as that in which the con¬ 
test was renewed. In the case at bar the decision claimed to be res 
adjudicata was rendered at a different Congress. In the Fitch and 
Bright case the Senate held that the adjudication became final after 
the end of a single session of Congress. Much stronger reasons sup¬ 
port the contention that a judicial decision made by the Senate in one 
Congress is final upon the Senate in a subsequent Congress, when its 
membership has been changed, as in the case at bar. 

The doctrine of res adjudicata was again applied by the Senate in 
the case of Francis W. Sykes and George E. Spencer, decided by the 
Senate in the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Congresses. (Buck Sen¬ 
ate Election cases, 611-633.) The Sykes-Spencer case was a contest 
between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Sykes, each claiming to have been 
elected by the Legislature of Alabama. March 7, 1873, Mr. Spencer 
was sw r orn in as a Senator. December 8, 1873, the memorial of Mr. 
Sykes, which had been presented to the Senate before Mr. Spencer 
was sw T orn in, was referred to the Committee on Privileges and Flec¬ 
tions. April 20, 1874, the committee reported in favor of the election 
of Mr. Spencer. On May 28, 1874, the Senate determined in the 
negative by a vote—yeas 11, nays 33—a motion to amend the reso¬ 
lution so that it should declare that George E. Spencer had not been 
elected a Senator by the lawful legislature of the State of Alabama. 
The Senate thereupon adopted a resolution discharging the Com¬ 
mittee on Privileges and Flections from the further consideration of 
the memorial of Francis W. Sykes. Those proceedings took place in 
the first session of the Forty-third Congress. In the first session of 


44 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


the Forty-fourth Congress, on December 16, 1875, the Senate adopted 
a resolution instructing the Committee on Privileges and Elections to 
investigate and inquire whether in the election of Mr. Spencer there 
were used, or caused to be used, and employed corrupt means or 
corrupt practices to secure his election. On May 20, 1876, the Com¬ 
mittee on Privileges and Elections submitted its report; the com¬ 
mittee consisted of Senators Morton (chairman), Logan, Mitchell, 
Wadleigh, Cameron of Wisconsin, McMillan, Saulsbury, Merrimon, 
and Cooper. The committee found in favor of Mr. Spencer on the 
charges of corruption and said, with reference to the former decision 
of the Senate in the first contest: 

The question having been definitely settled, it was considered by the committee 
that it was not competent for the committee or the Senate to reopen it, and that it must 
be treated as res adjudicata. 

The committee asked leave to be discharged from the further con¬ 
sideration of the resolution and memorial. No minority report was 
filed. No further action was taken by the Senate. The effect of non¬ 
action was to adopt the report of the committee and to permit Senator 
Spencer to retain his seat. 

In the case of David T. Corbin v. M. C. Butler, of South Carolina 
(Buck Senate Election cases, 637-660), the respective credentials of 
Mr. Corbin and of Mr. Butler were presented to the Senate in 1877 and 
both were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. 
November 26, 1877, the Senate, by a resolution, discharged the Com¬ 
mittee on Privileges and Elections from a consideration of the cre¬ 
dentials of M. C. Butler, and on November 30, 1877, Mr. Butler was 
sworn in as a Senator in accordance with a motion which had been 
determined in the affirmative—yeas 29, nays 28. On February 4 , 
1879, Senator Cameron, of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Privileges 
and Elections, submitted a report, accompanied by a resolution, that 
David T. Corbin had been duly elected Senator for the seat then held 
by Senator Butler. This report of the committee was in response to 
a reference by the Senate to the committee on March 26, 1878, of a 
petition presented by Mr. Corbin to the Senate. In the committee 
Senator Butler objected to the hearing of Mr. Corbin’s petition, on the 
ground that the decision of the Senate November 30, 1877, authorizing 
him to be sworn, was res adjudicata. The majority of the committee 
overruled the plea, not on the ground that res adjudicata was not a 
good defense in the Senate, but because the committee held it was not 
supported by the facts in the case. The committee held that Mr. 
Corbin had never been heard and that the controversy had not been 
determined upon a consideration of the merits. The majority of the 
committee seem to have overlooked the proposition laid down in the 
Fitch and Bright case, supra, that the fact that the contestant had not 
been heard was not controlling, because the judgment of the Senate 
established the status of the senatorship and was a judgment in rem. 
The minority, consisting of Senators Merriman, Saulsbury, and Hill, 
presented to the Senate their views, in which they took the position 
that the former action of the Senate on November 27 and November 
30, 1877, did constitute res adjudicata. The Senate sustained the 
minority of the committee, and on February 25, 1879, determined in 
the negative the resolution reported by the committee declaring 
David T. Corbin duly elected. The vote of the Senate rejecting the 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


45 


majority report in the Corbin and Butler case, and upholding the 
defense of res ad judicata, was yeas 25, nays 36. 

A recent case in which the Senate has declared the doctrine of res 
adjudicata is that of Hon. Henry A. du Pont, of Delaware. (Buck 
Senate Election cases, 818-874.) At the first session of the Fifty- 
fourth Congress there was presented to the Senate the petition of 
Mr. du Pont, claiming a seat in the Senate for the full term com¬ 
mencing March 4, 1895. The validity of his election was attacked on 
on the ground that he had not received a majority of all the votes 
cast, and that contention turned upon the question whether the vote 
of William T. Watson as a State senator was valid and legal. It was 
claimed by Mr. du Pont that Watson had ceased to be a State senator 
by reason of the fact that, before the vote in question on the election 
of United States Senator, Watson had been inaugurated as governor 
of the State of Delaware. The majority of the Committee on Privi¬ 
leges and Elections, consisting of Senators Mitchell, Hoar, Chandler, 
Burrows, and Pritchard, held that Mr. du Pont/s election was legal. 
A minority, consisting of Senators Turpie, Pugh, Gray, and Palmer, 
filed their views to the effect that Mr. du Pont did not receive a 
majority vote of the whole number of members of both houses of the 
Delaware Legislature. The question was debated at length in the 
Senate, and on May 15, 1896, a resolution that Mr. Du Pont was not 
entitled to a seat in the Senate was agreed to by a vote of yeas 31, 
nays 30. At the second session of the Fifty-fourth Congress memo¬ 
rials were presented to the Senate praying that the question of the 
validity of Mr. du Pont’s election again be investigated and recon¬ 
sidered by the Senate. These memorials were again referred to the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections. On March 1, 1897, the com¬ 
mittee presented to the Senate its report, signed by Senators George 
F. Hoar, William E. Chandler, J. C. Pritchard, J. C. Burrows, George 
Gray, David Turpie, James L. Pugh, and John M. Palmer. The 
committee unanimously reported that the adoption by the Senate, 
by a majority vote, on May 15, 1896, of the resolution that Mr. du 
Pont was not entitled to a seat in the Senate was final and conclusive 
and barred subsequent action by the Senate. The committee in its 
report said: 

The majority of your committee now, as then, are of the opinion that this decision 
of the Senate was wrong; but the Senate is made by the Constitution the judge of the 
elections, qualifications, and returns of its members, and its judgment is just as bind¬ 
ing in law, in all constitutional vigor and potency, when it is rendered by one majority 
as when it is unanimous. 

It is clear that the word “judge” in the Constitution was used advisedly. The 
Senate in the case provided for is to declare a result depending upon the application 
of law to existing facts, and is not to be affected in its action by the desire of its 
Members or by their opinions as to public policies or public interest. Its action 
determines great constitutional rights—the title of an individual citizen to a high 
office and the title of a sovereign State to be represented in the Senate by the person 
of its choice. We can not doubt that this declaration of the Senate is a judgment in 
the sense in which that word is used by judicial tribunals. We can conceive of no 
case which can arise in human affairs where it is more important that a judgment of 
any court should be respected and should stand unaffected by caprice or anything 
likely to excite passion or to tempt virtue. When the Senate decided the question 
it was sitting as a high constitutional court. In its action we think it ought to respect 
the principles, in giving effect to its own decision, which have been established in 
other judicial tribunals in like cases and which the experience of mankind has found 
safe and salutary. 


46 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMER. 


The committee further said, with reference to the importance of 
adherence to the doctrine of res adjudicata: 

It seems to us very important to the preservation of constitutional government, 
very important to the dignity and authority of the Senate, very important to the peace 
of the country, that we should abide by this principle. There are few greater tempta¬ 
tions which affect the conduct of men than the temptation to seize upon political 
power without regard to the obligation of law. To act upon the doctrine upon which 
this petition rests would expose the Senate to the temptation to reverse its own judg¬ 
ments and to vacate or to award seats in this Chamber according as the changing 
majorities should make possible. If such practice should be admitted it would, in 
our opinion, go far to weaken the respect due to this body and the respect due to 
constitutional authority. (Congressional Record, vol. 29, pp. 2524, 2525.)' 

When the Senate held, on the first hearing of the du Pont case, that 
the election of Mr. du Pont was not legal, the Legislature of Delaware 
elected to fill the vacancy the Hon. Richard R. Kenney. When the 
Senate committee unanimously reported that the first decision of 
the Senate in the du Pont case was a bar to reopening the matter, the 
Senate unanimously admitted Senator Kenney. This action of the 
Senate was equivalent to a unanimous declaration that the doctrine 
of res adjudicata applied. It is to be inferred from the reports of the 
committee that at the time of the second application the complexion 
of the Senate had so changed that those upholding the legality of 
Mr. du Pont’s election were in the majority. It is expressly stated 
in the report that such was the line of division in the committee 
itself. Nevertheless, both the committee and the Senate unani¬ 
mously yielded their personal views of the propriety of Mr. du Pont’s 
election and enforced the important principle of res adjudicata. 

Senator Lorimer, by his counsel, in this case claims the benefit of 
the doctrine of res adjudicata. Before this committee such a claim 
was made, setting up that the legality and validity of his elec¬ 
tion were finally adjudicated by the Senate during the Sixty-first 
Congress, when the Senate pronounced final judgment on the ques¬ 
tion by determining in the negative the resolution that William Lori¬ 
mer was not duly and legally elected to a seat in the Senate of the 
United States by the Legislature of the State of Illinois. No formal 
plea is necessary in such a matter. In actions where strict pleading 
is not required, former adjudication need not be specially pleaded. 
Lord Mansfield decided, in Bird v. Randall (3 Burr., 1345), that in 
actions on the case no plea of former adjudication is necessary. This 
is the general rule in this country. (2 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 
231.) 

In any event, counsel for Senator Lorimer might well have with¬ 
held filing the plea until some resolution was offered declaring the elec¬ 
tion invalid. The resolution appointing this committee directed an 
investigation of the election. If, as a result of that investigation or 
otherwise, any resolution should be hereafter offered to the Senate 
declaring that the election of William Lorimer as a Senator from Illi¬ 
nois was illegal and invalid, when such a resolution is offered it would 
be in order for Senator Lorimer to invoke the defense of res adjudicata. 
Until such a resolution is offered and under consideration in the Sen¬ 
ate there would be no occasion, measured by the analogies of a plead¬ 
ing in a court of law or in equity, for a Senator formally to present his 
defense. The Senate by the adoption of the resolution appointing' 
this committee did not vacate or attempt to vacate the former judg- 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 47 

ment. The Supreme Court of the United States (In re Chapman, 166 
U. S., 661) said of a resolution of the Senate: 

It was certainly not necessary that the resolution should declare in advance what 
the Senate meditated doing when the investigation was concluded. 

And the court there pointed out that no one could tell what action 
would be taken or contemplated by the Senate until the investigation 
was concluded. And so here, neither Senator Lorimer nor anyone 
else could know what the Senate meditated doing when the investi¬ 
gation was concluded—could not know whether or not any resolution 
would even be offered assailing the validity of the election in question. 
But the plea serves to call to the attention of this committee the 
question of res adjudicata; and this committee deems it its duty to 
present to the Senate the facts and the contentions bearing on that 
question so that the Senate may, as the defense of res adjudicata is 
made, understand that any resolution which may be offered would 
be subject to the defense of res adjudicata. 

In the argument submitted to this committee on behalf of Senator 
Lorimer it is said: 

There was in the case at bar (A) a final judgment (B) by a competent tribunal 
invested with complete jurisdiction to try the issue; (C) the parties to the former 
judgment are the same parties as are now in controversy, and (D) the issues and causes 
of action were precisely the same. When these elements are present the former 
judgment is a bar not only to what was actually litigated in the former suit, but to all 
matters that might have been litigated under the issues thereof. 

That argument then takes up the subjects of the enumerated ele¬ 
ments. We agree with the contention that each of those enumerated 
elements is present in the case before us, so that a resolution declar¬ 
ing against the validity of Senator Lorimer’s election would be subject 
to the defense of res adjudicata. 

(A) The adjudication by the Senate, by its action of March 1, 1911, 
on the resolution, was final. By that action the Senate finally 
adjudged that Senator Lorimer was duly and legally elected to a seat 
in the Senate of the United States. As pointed out by counsel for 
Senator Lorimer, “If the resolution had been adopted Senator 
Lorimer would have been unseated, and he could not have asked 
the Senate at the Sixty-second Congress to rehear him and change 
its judgment.” Manifestly, the judgment, if against, him, would 
have been final, and equally plain is the fact that the judgment for 
him was also final. No contention can be made that the form of the 
resolution prevents its being considered a final judgment. 

Black on Judgments says: 

In considering the effect of a judgment as res adjudicata its actual form or style is 
not very material, provided it embodies the essential features of an actual sentence or 
decision of the court. 

The sentence or decision of the Senate in all contested election 
cases and in all expulsion cases has been made by resolution. Counsel 
cites many cases in the Senate by some of which the title of a Senator 
to his seat has been confirmed and by others of which expulsion has 
been defeated, where the judgment of the Senate was expressed by 
the determination of a resolution in the negative. We deem it 
unnecessary to review these cases. It is sufficient to refer to but one, 
namely, the unanimous report of the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections in the du Pont case, supra, where the committee said: 

We can not doubt that this declaration of the Senate is a judgment in the sense in 
which that word is used by judicial tribunals. 

S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2- 4 



48 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


The courts have decided that the determination of a matter of 
election by the adoption of a resolution in a legislative body con¬ 
stitutes a final adjudication. (State of Maryland v. JarrettA Har¬ 
wood, 17 Md., 309; Opinion of the Justices, 56 N. H., 570.) 

(B) The Senate was a tribunal competent to render the judgment. 

The numerous decisions of the courts and of the Senate itself cited 

of this report establish that the Senate, in passing upon an election 
case, is a court exercising purely judicial functions. Moreover, the 
jurisdiction of the Senate in such a matter is exclusive. 

Herman on Estoppel says (sec. 131, p. 143): 

A much more conclusive effect is given to judgments of courts of exclusive jurisdic¬ 
tion than to judgments of courts which have only concurrent jurisdiction. 

The fact that the judgment was rendered by a divided court does 
not detract from its conclusiveness as res ad judicata. It has been 
held by the Supreme Court of the United States, and by many other 
courts, that the fact the former judgment was pronounced by a 
divided court, or even a court equally divided, as sometimes happens 
in cases of affirmance by operation of law in courts of appellate review, 
makes the judgment none the less binding. (Durant v. Essex County, 
7 Wall., 107; McAllisters. Hamilton, 61 S. C., 6; 39 S. E., 182; Kolb 
v. Swann, 68 Md., 516; 13 Atl., 379.) 

(C) The parties to the proceeding are the same. 

In cases of judgments in rem identity of parties is not an element 
essential to the application of the doctrine of res adjudicata because 
in such a case the former judgment concludes not only the parties, 
but the whole world. In the Fitch and Bright case the Senate treated 
the former judgment as a judgment in rem. When the judgment is 
in personam the law requires that the parties in the second proceeding 
be the same as the parties in the proceeding leading to the former 
judgment. In any proceeding against the validity of the election of 
William Lorimer the plaintiff would be the Senate itself in its inquisi¬ 
torial or prosecuting capacity' and the defendant would be, of course, 
William Lorimer. Much of the law of res adjudicata has been bor¬ 
rowed by modern jurisdictions from the civil law of Rome. In the 
Roman law the respective parties were known as the actor and the 
reus. In legal contemplation the judgment pronounced by the 
Senate, March 1, 1911, was in the action of the United States Sen¬ 
ate, actor, v. William Lorimer, reus. The Government and its 
branches and agencies are subject to the operation of the law of res 
adjudicata the same as individuals. (See the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States in United States v. California & Oregon 
Land Co., 192 U. S., 355.) 

(D) If, as a result of this investigation, there should be presented 
to the Senate a resolution that the election of William Lorimer was 
invalid, then the issue raised by that resolution would be precisely 
the same as that in the proceeding leading to the judgment of March 
1, 1911, whereby the Senate adjudicated that the election of William 
Lorimer was valid and legal. Beyond all question, complete identity 
of issue is shown by the record. 

Your committee, therefore, concludes that both on principle and 
by authority the action of the Senate March 1, 1911, deciding that 
the election of William Lorimer was valid and legal, constitutes res 
adjudicata as against any subsequent attempt to have the Senate 
decide that the election was not valid and legal. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


49 


In this connection it is well to direct attention to the fact that the 
principle of res adjudicata embraces not only what was actually de¬ 
termined, but extends also to every matter which, under the issues, 
the parties might have litigated. As pointed out in the briefs sub¬ 
mitted, there is some misunderstanding as to the law of res adjudicata, 
due to attempts to cover the whole subject by definite rules intended 
to be applicable to all cases. Where the issues are the same the bar 
of the former judgment extends not only to points actually decided 
but to all the points and questions which could have been litigated 
under the issues in the former proceeding. Where the issues are not 
the same and where a former judgment is relied on simply as an estop- 

f >el on some limited issue that is common to both proceedings, then the 
aw is that the former judgment is conclusive only as to what was 
actually decided. But the latter principle has no possible application 
here because, beyond all question, the issue would be the same as it 
was in the former proceeding in the Senate, namely, whether the elec¬ 
tion of William Lorimer as a Senator from Illinois was valid and legal. 
The rule that where the former judgment was upon the same issues 
it is a bar not only as to what was actually litigated and decided, but 
as to everything that might have been litigated under the issues in the 
former proceeding, has, as said by Herman on Estoppel (sec. 125, pp. 
133, 134), “not only gone unchallenged for more than half a century, 
but a uniform and unbroken line of cases has given it approval.” 

In the brief filed by counsel for Senator Lorimer, in order to show 
the universality of that rule, counsel has reviewed many decisions of 
the Supreme Court of the United States and has cited decisions of the 
highest courts of each of the eight States represented in the Senate 
by members of this committee. An examination of the general 
digests shows that the same rule is in force in practically every State 
of the United States. 

The doctrine that the effect of a judgment as a bar or estoppel 
against the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim or 
demand is a bar not only as to every matter which was offered and 
received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to every 
other matter which might have been offered for that purpose, was 
elaborately explained by the Supreme Court of the United States in 
Cromwell v. Sac County (94 U. S., 351). It appears that the decision 
on that point has been cited and followed by the Supreme Court in 
more than 40 subsequent decisions. Counsel has reviewed many 
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States which establish 
the doctrine, but it is unnecessary to cite more than the following: 
Northern Pacific Rv. Co. v. Slaght (205 U. S., 122); Green v. Bogue 
(158 U. S., 478); Werlein v. New Orleans (177 U. S., 390); National 
Foundry, etc., v. Oconto Water Supply (183 U. S., 216). 

Everything that has been brought forward in the present investi¬ 
gation could have been presented and litigated in the former pro¬ 
ceeding under the issues thereof. The existence of the evidence with 
the taking of which the present hearing was begun, namely, the tes¬ 
timony of Clarence S. Funk, was known to some Senators at the time 
of the former hearing of this matter before the Senate. Mr. Kohl- 
saat, the editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, sent telegrams and let¬ 
ters to a number of Senators advising them of the existence of that 
evidence during the pendency of the question before the Senate and 
before its final action. The former committee permitted the Tribune 


50 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORTMER. 


to be represented before it by counsel. The editor of the Tribune 
knew from Mr. Kohlsaat of the existence of that evidence while the 
subcommittee was sitting in Chicago engaged in taking the testimony. 
(Record, 2001-2003.) No effort was ever made by those who under¬ 
took to present all the evidence and who knew of the Funk story to 
present in that proceeding any phase of the subject covered by the 
testimony of Mr. Funk. Manifestly no judicial tribunal should en¬ 
courage the trying of a case by piecemeal. The very object of courts 
is to put an end to controversy. And no court would permit a party 
who has knowledge of his evidence to withhold it at the first trial for 
the purpose of getting a second trial if defeated in the first. 

As an application oi the principle established by the authorities 
last referred to, the law is clearly to the effect that newly discovered 
evidence furnishes no ground for avoiding the bar of a former final 
judgment. Some of the laity may have the impression that a former 
judgment can be nullified by bringing forth at a second hearing 
newly discovered evidence. No law author and no court recognizes 
any such exception to the doctrine of res ad judicata. The Supreme 
Court of the United States, speaking through Mr. Justice Harlan, 
in Southern Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States (168 U. S., 1), said: 

We can not concur in the view that the evidence upon this branch of the case is of 
such nature as to compel the court, in the interest of truth and justice, not only to 
consider it but to pass again upon the issue made in the former suits as to the character 
of the maps of 1872. Whatever is new in the evidence now before us, touching that 
matter, is simply cumulative on the one side or the other. The application to consider 
that evidence is practically an application for a rehearing as to things directly deter¬ 
mined in the former suits between the same parties, and which adjudication has never 
been modified. Such a course of procedure is wholly inadmissible under the settled 
rule of res adjudicata. 

In Hubbell v. United States (171 U. S., 203), at page 209, the 
vSupreme Court declared that the development of a different theory 
or state of facts on the second trial does not change the rule of res 
adjudicata. The court said: 

But, even if a somewhat different theory or state of facts were developed upon the 
trial of the second case, the former judgment would not operate the less as an estoppel, 
since the patentee can not bring suit against an infringer upon a certain state of facts, 
and after a dismissal of his action, bring another suit against the same party upon the 
same state of facts, and recover upon a different theory. The judgment in the first 
action is a complete estoppel in favor of the successful party in a subsequent action 
upon the same state of facts. 

The Supreme Court of Illinois has forcefully expressed the same 
view in the recent case of Marie M. E. Church v. Trinitv M. E. Church 
(253 Ill., 21). 

Black on Judgments (vol. 2, sec. 731) says: 

The parties to a suit must make the most of their day in court, and bring forward all 
claims and demands properly belonging to the cause of action as well as all other evi¬ 
dence and all necessary parts of their case or defense, on pain of being barred in a 
subsequent controversy. 

To the same effect are 1 Van Fleet on Former Adjudication (p. 209, 
sec. 83); 23 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, 1291, citing decisions 
from the Federal courts of California, Colorado, Louisiana, New Jer¬ 
sey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin, and England. 

The authorities make it plain that the Senate is barred by the rule 
of res adjudicata from reopening and rehearing this case on the ground 
of newly discovered evidence. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


51 


But the newly discovered evidence question is not one of great 
importance in this matter, for the reason that even if the doctrine of 
res ad judicata were not in the way no case whatever has been made 
out that would warrant the granting of a new trial on the ground of 
newly discovered evidence. In that class of cases where the courts 
set aside verdicts and grant new trials for newly discovered evidence, 
there are certain well-defined limitations upon granting new trials on 
that ground. The granting of new trials on the ground of newly 
discovered evidence is a power cautiously exercised by the courts, and 
the strictest rules are applied in examining an application on such a 
ground. 

In the first place, the evidence newly discovered must be “of such 
a character and strength that it is reasonably certain that it would 
have produced an opposite result if produced at the trial”; the new 
evidence must be incontrovertible and conclusive. (29 Cyclopedia of 
Law and Procedure, 900-902, and several hundred decisions cited in 
notes; 23 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, 1031.) “The evidence 
must not be merely cumulative or corroborative or merely intended 
to impeach some of the witnesses at the former trial.” (Same 
authorities, and 29 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, 907-918.) 

In the next place, the evidence must actually have been discovered 
after the time of the former trial, and the party seeking the new trial 
must excuse his failure to produce the new evidence by showing that 
he failed to discover it, notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence 
by him. Of course, if the party knows of the new evidence at the 
time of the former trial, such knowledge is a complete bar to the grant¬ 
ing of a new trial on this ground. (29 Cyclopedia of Law and Proce¬ 
dure, 885, 886, et seq.; 23 Cyclopedia of Law and Procedure, 103.) 

The record clearly shows in the present proceeding that the exist¬ 
ence of the principal new evidence which it may be claimed was the 
occasion for making the new inquiry was known to some Senators at 
the time of the former hearing before the Senate. See testimony of 
Mr. Kohlsaat and letters and telegrams of Mr. Ivohlsaat to divers 
Senators. (Record, vol. 1, pp. 438, 445, 451, 455, 467-473; vol. 8, 
pp. 7332-7335.) 

Moreover, the granting of new trials on the ground of newly discov¬ 
ered evidence is usually to the party defendant. (6 Pomeroy’s 
Equity Jurisprudence, edition of 1905, sec. 661; 23 Cyclopedia of 
Law and Procedure, 1030.) Few, if any, cases can be found where 
such relief was granted to one who occupied the position of plaintiff 
in the former trial. The reason for this is that it generally lies within 
the power of the party plaintiff to dismiss his proceedings and to 
start them anew if he deems h's evidence insufficient, especially if 
he had any intimation that additional evidence could be produced. 

The new evidence introduced on this hearing was mainly of these 
three classes: (1) Rumor, gossip, and opinion about various mem¬ 
bers of the Illinois Legislature; (2) evidence such as the testimony 
of Clarence S. Funk as to talk of a fund in connection with the sena¬ 
torial election, which we show elsewhere was known by those urging 
this reinvestigation while the former one was in progress; (3) evi¬ 
dence favorable to Senator Lorimer, contradicting certain testimony 
adverse to him, and explaining many circumstances not explained 
on the first investigation. 


52 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Of course, the evidence of the third class furnishes no newly discov¬ 
ered evidence to overturn the former judgment. 

No one could say that the evidence of the first class was conclusive. 
It was not even evidence in any legal sense. Thousands of pages of 
the record contain testimony of this kind, which would not have been 
competent under any rules governing the admissibility of evidence, 
but which was received by this committee in order to obtain every 
possible matter of information bearing on the situation. For ex¬ 
ample, there was evidence that some members of the Illinois Legis- 
ture, several months after the senatorial election, were seen in posses¬ 
sion of a number of $100 bills. The possession of such money was no 
evidence that it was acquired corruptly, for it is at least as reasonable 
to infer that it was obtained honestly. But if it appeared the member 
was unable to account clearly for the possession of the money, and if 
there were anything to indicate a possibility that the money was ob¬ 
tained as a result of corrupt practices, there is no reason whatever for 
inferring, from the fact of possession of the money by such a member 
that the money was received as a payment for voting for Senator 
Lorimer. Such a member voted on several hundred measures in the 
session. One of the laws enacted at that session limited the hours 
of work for women in factories to 10 hours. It would be absurd to 
say that the possession of the money was proof that a member who 
voted for that law was paid for so doing ? It is equally absurd to con¬ 
tend that the mere fact that some member of the legislature, not in 
any way otherwise subject to any imputation of corruption in voting 
for Mr. Lorimer, was in possession of money several months after the 
election, was evidence that he had received that money for voting for 
Senator Lorimer ? All the evidence of this class was lacking in that 
conclusiveness essential to the granting of new trials on the ground 
of newly discovered evidence. 

The Funk testimony was also lacking in conclusiveness. In fact, 
it has been taken cum grano salis by nearly everyone who has heard 
it. Mr. Funk himself admitted that he thought his story would not 
be believed. His associates, to whom it is claimed he told the story 
at the time, did not take it seriously enough to report it to any of 
the public authorities or to the committee of the Senate that shortly 
afterwards was in session across the street from the office of Mr. Funk 
and his associates, and these associates of Mr. Funk who testified 
that they heard from him the story profess to be very good citizens. 
Mr. Kohlsaat did not have enough confidence in the story of Mr. 
Funk to insist upon the right to give it full and unqualified publicity. 
He did make the story known (without revealing Funk’s identity) 
to several Senators some time before the final action of the Senate in 
the former proceeding. No Senator thus advised treated the informa¬ 
tion as of enough importance to ask for a reference back to the com¬ 
mittee or the reopening of the taking of evidence, though all knew 
Mr. Kohlsaat could not refuse to reveal the name of his informant if 
Mr. Kohlsaat were called as a witness. When Mr. Funk did give 
his testimony its very improbability was its most marked feature. 
It was wholly uncorroborated. His version was contradicted in its 
various parts by many witnesses. No one could say it was sustained 
by the preponderance of the evidence. The testimony of others as 
to the gossip regarding a fund used in the senatorial election was 
speculative and worthless and wherever it had any tangibility it 
was conclusively contradicted and refuted. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


53 


So, even if it were proper to vacate the former judgment on the 
ground of newly discovered evidence, there is no newly discovered 
evidence to which attaches conclusiveness and the other elements 
uniformly recognized by the courts as necessary to be present in 
order to warrant granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered 
evidence. 

It is a general rule that no court has a right to vacate its judgment 
after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered. The 
Senate has no fixed terms, but in the Fitch and Bright case, supra, 
and in other res adjudicata cases of the Senate the expiration of a 
session of Congress has been treated as the lapse of a term. In this 
case the second investigation is at a different Congress and a con¬ 
siderable portion of the membership of the Senate is changed. 

In Anderson v. Dunn (6 Wheat., 204) the Supreme Court of the 
United States held that a House of Congress ceases to exist the 
moment of its periodical adjournment or duration. 

The Supreme Court of the United States is a tribunal of last resort, 
and there would be no power in the Government to overrule it if it 
should choose to grant a rehearing on any ground after the expira¬ 
tion of the term at which it renders a judgment Yet that court has 
always refused so to do. In Bronson v. Schulten (104 U. S., 410) 
the Supreme Court of the United States said: 

In this country all courts have terms and vacations. The time of the commence¬ 
ment of every term, if there be half a dozen a year, is fixed by statute and the end 
of it by the final adjournment of the court for that term. This is the case with regard 
to all the courts of the United States, and if there be exceptions in the State courts 
they are unimportant. It is a general rule of the law that all the judgments, decrees, 
or other orders of the courts, however conclusive in their character, are under the con¬ 
trol of the court which pronounces them during the term at which they are rendered 
or entered of record, and may then be set aside, vacated, modified, or annulled by 
that court. 

But it is a rule equally well established that after the term has ended all final 
judgments and decrees of the court pass beyond its control, unless steps be taken 
during that term, by motion or otherwise, to set aside, modify, or correct them, and 
if errors exist they can only be corrected by such proceeding by a writ of error or 
appeal as may be allowed in a court which by law can review the decision. So 
strongly has this principle been upheld by this court that while realizing that there 
is no court which can review its decisions it has invariably refused all applications 
for rehearing made after the adjournment of the court for the term at which the judg¬ 
ment was rendered. And this is placed upon the ground that the case has passed be¬ 
yond the control of the court. (Brooks v. R. R. Co., ante, 91; Public Schools v. 
Walker, 9 Wall., 603; Brown v. Aspden, 14 How., 25; Cameron v. Me Roberts, 3 Wheat., 
591; ex parte Sibbard r. U. S., 12 Pet., 488; U. S. v. Glamorgan, 2 Curtis, 236; Brad¬ 
ford v. Patterson, 1 A. D. Marsh, 464; Ballard v. Davis, 3 J. J. Marsh, 656.) 

Many authorities on this proposition are collected and reviewed 
in Phillips v. Negley (117 U. S., 665). 

If a tribunal will not respect its own judgments it can not expect 
others to do so. This committee submits the enforcement of the 
doctrine of res adjudicata is essential to uphold the dignity of the 
court pronouncing the judgment in this case. The reasons which 
call for the enforcement of the doctrine of res adjudicata by the 
courts apply even more strongly to the Senate. 

The Supreme Court of the United States, in Southern Pacific 
Bailway Company v. United States (168 U. S., 1), at page 49, said: 

This general rule is demanded by the very object for which civil courts have been 
established, which is to secure the peace and repose of society by the settlement of 
matters capable of judicial determination. Its enforcement is essential to the main¬ 
tenance of social order; for the aid of judicial tribunals would not be invoked for the 


54 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


vindication of rights of person and property if, as between parties and their privies, 
conclusiveness did not attend the judgments of such tribunals in respect of all matters 
properly put in issue and actually determined by them. 

Our conclusion is the doctrine of res adjudicata applies here and the 
former judgment of the Senate rendered March 1, 1911, herein is con¬ 
clusive. 

Under the principles laid down by the highest judicial tribunals in 
the land, the Senate of the Sixty-second Congress would not question 
the title of Mr. Lorimer to his seat, the right to which was determined 
in the Sixty-first Congress, even though new evidence had been pro¬ 
duced to impeach it. This committee, however, would not feel in¬ 
clined to follow this rule implicitly, and if new and substantial evidence 
had been discovered showing clearly that he had secured his election 
by corruption, we would recommend a reconsideration in order that 
the honor and integrity of the Senate may be maintained. Abso¬ 
lutely no new and substantial evidence has been discovered impeach¬ 
ing his title, and for the Senate under such circumstances to recon¬ 
sider its action taken in another Congress would be to invoke the rule 
of might instead of the rule of right, and would violate the uniform 
and universal rule of action followed by all the courts of Christendom 
and the unbroken precedents of the Senate itself. 

THE JACK POT. 

This committee was specially instructed to inquire fully into and 
report upon the sources and use of the alleged jack-pot fund, or any 
other fund, in its relation to and effect, if any, upon the election of 
William Lorimer to the Senate. 

The committee has hereinbefore specifically reported its inability to 
find any evidence of the existence of a jack pot or any other fund 
raised or used for the purpose of affecting such election. 

Whether corruption existed in the General Assembly of Illinois of 
1909 or in previous legislatures affecting general legislation, is a ques¬ 
tion concerning which it is difficult to secure definite information. 
This is apparent from the nature of the case, for no one participat¬ 
ing in it would willingly admit his guilt. 

Many members of the legislature of 1909 testified that they had 
never heard the question discussed; others that it had been discussed, 
but in a joking way; that if a man changed his vote on any question 
or if a bill passed or failed to pass some one would inquire, “What 
was there in it?” or make other inquiries of that character. But 
there were witnesses who testified to gossips and common report that 
in previous legislatures and in the legislature of 1909 corruption was 
practiced either to secure or retard legislation. 

For instance, Mr. Hinman, editor of the Inter-Ocean, while having 
no personal knowledge on the subject, testified that it was a matter 
of common report and it was his opinion and belief that there has 
been a jack pot in every legislature since he has lived in Illinois, a 
period of 12 years (Hinman, 203, 209), and that common report 
connected the liquor interests with such jack pots (209-210). Mr. 
Keeley, editor and manager of the Chicago Tribune, testified that he 
heard charges that there were jack pots; that various bills were 
hold-up bills; that money had been paid or solicited for their passage 
(record, 1908); that the liquor interests had contributed; that it 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


55 


was a matter of common gossip, but not of knowledge; that in his 
experience of 20 years in the newspaper business it has been common 
gossip, but apparently incapable of proof (1916). Mr. Kohlsaat, 
editor of the Chicago Record-Herald, testified that it was the general 
impression that the jack pot has been an established institution in the 
Legislature of Illinois for years, although he has no definite knowledge 
of the fact (495). 

Speaker Shurtleff in his testimony (record, 4585-4586) states that 
during his service in the legislature he heard many statements 
regarding corruption, some of which he thinks were seriously made 
and others in a jocular way, but in the spring of 1909 he was invited 
to a dinner by certain gentlemen from different parts of the country 
who were connected with railroads, at which the subject of railroad 
legislation was. freely discussed, and protests made against the na¬ 
ture of bills that were introduced in the legislature, and they sought 
his cooperation in the assembly of 1909 against bills and proposed 
legislation which they deemed radical. He does not remember the 
language used, but says that he absorbed the impression that in 
years back the railroads had felt that they had been blackmailed or 
compelled to pay tribute (4585-4586) and that the dinner was by 
way of a declaration of independence from such legislation, and to 
ask his assistance in the effort they were making to protect themselves 
against being held up and blackmailed. No particular bill was dis¬ 
cussed and no specific instance alleged. 

Gov. Deneen testified, in substance, that there is a general under¬ 
standing that they began in 1897 and have continued ever since. 
Concerning the existence of jack pots, he did not profess to have 
any personal knowledge or to be able to state any definite fact, 
but he testified that it is the general understanding in Illinois that 
money is paid; that it accumulates in the hands of several men 
and is distributed according to the judgment of the men who control 
(1122). He further testified that he did not know upon what prin¬ 
ciple the fund was distributed, but assumed that the men who create, 
who gather the fund, certain leaders, have the determining power as 
to how it shall be done. He testified that he had heard that the 
railroads have contributed for years to protect themselves against 
legislation; that the gas companies, or gas company, of Chicago, and 
the electric light company, the liquor interests, and the stock yards 
companies and the elevator companies, he thought, and the Pullman 
company and the street car companies have contributed (1123); that 
such is the general running rumor, but that he does not know that it 
is based on facts at all (1123); that he never made an investigation 
and had no power or facilities to do so (1123). 

It further appears from Gov. Deneen’s testimony that in the forty- 
sixth general assembly (that of 1909) railroad presidents from differ¬ 
ent parts of the country asked him to meet them, saying that bills 
were being presented that went to the extent of confiscation of their 
propert} r ; and that, under the Federal laws, their books were exam¬ 
ined to such an extent that they could not do what they were going 
to be asked to do, even if they wanted to; that they were against 
such practices, except in self-defense, where the men “held them 
up” at the point of a gun (1131). 

The governor testified that he told them that the only way to do 
would be to call in the leading men and have them go down to Spring- 


56 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


field in such numbers as to overcome the influence of the other men, 
and that they said that they intended to make a stand against the 
practice, and that they would cease to be “held up” by them. 

Gov. Deneen testified that according to the newspapers they sent a 
thousand men down there at one time, and that they were greatly ex¬ 
cited about the situation and appealed to him for aid (1131). Fur¬ 
ther testifying, the governor said that the implication was that the rail¬ 
roads had been previously “held up” and that they took that method 
of defeating legislation instead of contributing to a jack pot (1132). 

From all the evidence secured it is clear that the term “ jack pot,” 
as used by the people of Illinois and by the newspapers of that State, 
refers to a supposed fund created by contributions from persons or cor¬ 
porations with a purpose either to secure or defeat pending or proposed 
legislation, such fund to be corruptly used for one of those purposes 
and to be distributed according to the judgment of men in control 
and, ordinarily, a considerable time after the adjournment of the 
legislature. 

Without definite proof of the existence of specific jack pots the 
committee can only report that a general belief exists among many 
classes in Illinois that corruption funds which have recently come to 
be known as jack pots have been more or less common, in connec¬ 
tion with legislation in that State. 

WAS THERE A JACK POT IN 1909? 

If a jack pot was made up during the session of the Illinois Legis¬ 
lature of 1909, the evidence goes to establish the fact that it was 
of the ordinary character of jack pots referred to in the foregoing 
statements—that is to say—made up of contributions from those 
interested in special branches of legislation, but there is no evidence 
showing the existence of any fund, whether it be called jack pot or 
otherwise, which was contributed to for the purpose of aiding in the 
election of Mr. Lorimer to the Senate. The evidence is conclusive 
that Mr. Lorimer not only was not a candidate, but steadfastly 
refused- to entertain any suggestion to become a candidate for the 

P osition of United States Senator until about 10 or 12 days before 
is election, and the only evidence hinting at the creation of such a 
fund after that time is the Funk story, already discussed in this 
report, the investigation of which not only disclosed no evidence of 
the existence of such a fund, but resulted in the discovery of condi¬ 
tions and circumstances conclusively disproving its existence. And 
there is no evidence of any character that representatives of any 
special industry or industries were acting in Mr. Lorimer’s behalf. 

Aside from the testimony of White, Beckemeyer, Link, and Hoist- 
law there is no evidence of any corruption fund during the session of 
1909 or after its adjournment. 

White, Link, and Beckemeyer say that they received $1,000 each 
from Mr. Browne and $900 each from Mr. Wilson. In this respect 
they stand on a common basis. Of these three so receiving $1,900 
each, Beckemeyer and Link have insisted from first to last, and under 
extraordinary inducements, to connect the receipt of such money with 
the election of Mr. Lorimer, that they never received a dollar by 
reason of having voted for him. They have not only refused to 
admit that they received any money in consideration of their votes 
for Mr. Lorimer, but they have at all times positi ely sworn that they 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 57 

did not, and that they were not promised and did not expect any 
compensation for their votes. 

It is evident from all the circumstances that the $1,900 paid to each 
of the three—White, Beckemeyer, and Link—all came from the same 
source. 

Mr. Link had long been an admirer of Mr. Lorimer and was much 
interested in the plans which he advocated to accomplish the con¬ 
struction of the much talked of deep waterway between the Lakes 
and the Gulf. (Record, 7307.) In 1908 he heard Mr. Lorimer 
speak three times in Madison County, on which occasions he exhibited 
charts and made full explanation of the plans and the practicability 
of the project, and Mr. Link was so much interested and so much 
impressed by his arguments that he followed him to Granite City 
and to Edwardsville, where meetings were held. (Record, 6196.) 
He also heard Mr. Lorimer discuss the waterway question before the 
Legislature of Illinois and determined that if he could help elect him 
Senator he would do so, provided a Democrat could not be elected. 
(6196-97.) Mr. Link testified that he thought Mr. Lorimer could 
do more in the United States Senate than any other man to carry 
into operation the plan and as a result of this, about ten days prior 
to his election, he met Mr. Lorimer in Springfield and assured him 
of his support (Record, 6173-75, 6205-06), and later on when Lee 
O’Neil Browne asked liim if he would vote for a Republican, he 
replied, “It is according to what Republican you have in view,” and 
when Mr. Browne asked him how Mr. Lorimer would suit him, he 
told him that he had promised Mr. Lorimer personally a week or 10 
days before that he would vote for him. (6173-74, 6201.) 

Mr. Link has steadfastly insisted in the most positive terms that he 
was never promised any money or any thing of value in consideration 
of his vote for Mr. Lorimer, (Record, 7307), and there is no evidence 
to the contrary. Although he freely admitted having received $1,000 
from Lee O’Neil Browne and $900 from Robert E. Wilson, he has 
always stated that it had no connection whatever with his vote for 
Mr. Lorimer. 

Early in the proceedings Mr. Beckemeyer sent a telegram to the 
Chicago Daily News, in answer to an inquiry from that paper, in which 
he said: 

No one ever talked to me about money for voting for Lorimer. I did it of my own 
free will and accord. I know nothing of a jack pot that was distributed, nor did I ever 
hear of it. (2898.) 

Before this committee he was specially interrogated regarding the 
contents of that telegram, and among other things he said that 
nobody ever talked with him about money for voting for Mr. Lorimer 
before he did so vote; that nobody ever intimated to him at any 
time or place that if he voted for Mr. Lorimer he would receive 
money or any other thing of value; that he did not have any under¬ 
standing of any kind from any source that if he did vote for Mr. 
Lorimer he would receive money or any other thing of value or any 
other consideration whatever therefor; that the first element in that 
telegram was true, but upon being questioned concerning the second 
element in the telegram the following testimony was given: 

Judge Hanecy. You say, “I know nothing of a jackpot that was distributed.’’ 

Mr. Beckemeyer. No, sir; that is not true, because I did know about it at that 
time. (2899) 


58 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Mr. Beckemeyer further testified that the statement in the telegram 
that he never had heard of the jack pot was a lie, and that he knew it 
was a lie when he sent the telegram. (2899.) 

The only testimony that can be said to contain even a suggestion 
that the money paid Beckemeyer by Browne was not jack-pot money, 
within the meaning of the term as used by Beckemeyer in the fore¬ 
going testimony, is his statement that when Lee O’Neil Browne 
handed him a roll he told him that it was a thousand dollars, and said: 
^‘This is the Lorimer money and there will be some more in the 
future.” (2840.) 

This statement was first made to State’s Attorney Wayman after 
Beckemeyer had been three times before the Cook County grand 
jury, on neither of which occasions had he mentioned it. In the 
meantime, for two days he had been constantly in the custody of 
Officer Keeley and had been subjected to every kind of pressure 
to induce him to testify to various matters. When not before the 
grand jury he had been permitted to drink heavily, and the pre¬ 
ceding night had been taken by Officer Keeley to public resorts 
about Chicago, and late that night when grossly intoxicated had 
been taken by Officer Keeley to a house of ill fame, where they 
both remained for the balance of that night. Beckemeyer’s wife 
was then critically ill in a hospital in St. Louis, and he was in dire 
distress because of prospective indictments against him, and because 
of his fear of exposure of his conduct in Chicago. The statement 
was made after repeated conferences with the State’s attorney as to 
the testimony he intended to give regarding the part he had taken in 
receiving money from Browne and Wilson (record, 5761), in which 
he was assured by Mr. Wayman that he could not be indicted in 
Illinois for what occurred in St. Louis, and the further assurance on 
the part of Mr. Wayman of full immunity for any offense committed 
in the State of Illinois, which promise has been faithfully kept. Even 
when Beckemeyer made this statement to Mr. Wayman, according 
to the testimony of the latter, it was accompanied by the claim that 
he had no understanding with Browne before he voted for Mr. 
Lorimer (5765); that he was not expecting any money because of 
his vote for Mr. Lorimer, “but his supposition was that it was 
sort of understood that whatever there was in anything down 
there would be distributed, and they relied upon the integrity 
and honesty of their leader” (Wayman, 5765), “and that the bal¬ 
ance of the jack pot or the fund could not be distributed until 
something else was attended to” (Wayman, 5765), which fully 
accords with Beckemeyer’s testimony that at that time he knew 
there was a jack pot, and with his unbroken insistence that his vote 
for Mr. Lorimer had no connection therewith. 

The committee is convinced that Browne never mentioned “Lori¬ 
mer” in connection with the $1,000 Beckemeyer says he received, 
and that Beckemeyer brought Mr. Lorimer into the statement he 
made to Mr. Wayman in order to insure immunity. 

Charles A. White is the only one of the three who ever asserted that 
the money he received from Mr. Browne was for voting for Mr. Lori¬ 
mer, and it is a significant fact that he has always contended that the 
remaining $900 received through Mr. Wilson was from the jack-pot 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 59 

fund, and he complained because he did not get more, and Mr. 
Beckemeyer admits that he had knowledge of the jack-pot. 

The only legal evidence tending to show that it had any connection 
with the election of Mr. Lorimer is the testimony of White, given a 
year after the transaction and after he had, in consideration of $3,500, 
sold to the Chicago Tribune his “jack-pot story,” in which for the first 
time he made this claim. 

The testimony given by White before the grand jury of Cook 
County, the courts of that county, the first senatorial investigating 
committee, and this committee, is substantially as follows: 

Mr. Marble. Who first asked you to vote for Mr. Lorimer for Senator? 

Mr. White. Representative Lee O’Neil Browne. 

Mr. Marble. Had you discussed the possible election of Mr. Lorimer with any other 
person before that request was made? 

Mr. White. No, sir. 

Mr. Marble. Had you heard him discussed by members of the legislature prior to 
that request? 

Mr. White. Not to my knowledge; no, sir. 

Mr. Marble. When was that request made by Lee O’Neil Browne? 

Mr. White. The first time he talked with me about it was the night of the 24th of 
May, 1909. * * * In his room at the St. Nicholas Hotel, in Springfield, Ill. 
* * * He called me over the phone. I was in my room, and he called me over the 
phone and told me he would be up in a little while. He wanted to see me. * * * It 
was late at night. I would not want to fix the exact time; possibly between 10 and 12 
or 1 and 2 o’clock; somewhere in that time. He came up to the room afterwards, and 
invited me to go to his room. (2463-2464.) 

Mr. White says that Mr. Browne came to his room possibly 30 
minutes after telephoning; that he came alone, and that Otis V. 
Yarbrough and Sidney C. Yarbrough were in bed in his room at the 
time; that Mr. Browne entered the room and made some remark 
about three sleeping in one room; that there were some jokes passed, 
and Mr. Browne told him he wanted to have a little talk with him and 
invited him to his (Browne’s) room (2464); that he did so, where 
the following took place: 

Mr. White. He asked me if I could vote for a Republican. I replied: “Yes; I can 
vote for anything.” Then he asked me if I could vote for Lorimer for Senator. He 
might have said “Mr. Lorimer” or “William Lorimer.” I told him I could. He 
wanted to know whether he could depend on me or not. I told him yes. Then I 
think the question came up—I asked him how many men were going to vote for Mr. 
Lorimer, if I remember correctly, and I mentioned a few names. I asked him if cer¬ 
tain members of the house were going to vote for Mr. Lorimer. About some he replied 
“Yes” and about some he replied “No.” He told me it was strictly under my hat. 
He said: “Now, it won’t be any chicken feed, either.” (White, 2465.) 

Mr. Marble. What members were mentioned? 

Mr. White. I asked him if Mr. Naylor was going to vote for Mr. Lorimer. He said 
no. I asked him if Mr. Morris was. He said yes. I asked him if Mr. Fahy was. He 
said no. I asked him if Mr. Wilson was. He said yes. I asked him if Mr. Abrahams 
was. He answered yes. I asked him if Mr. McGuire was. He said yes. I might 
have mentioned a few more. (2466.) 

And he adds: 

I think there might have been something suggested to the effect that he would let 
me know when to vote. (2466.) 

And continuing Mr. White testified: 

Mr. Browne cautioned me again about being quiet. He said he was suspicious of a 
little place above there that they called Joliet. (2466.) 

Mr. White testifies that on the following day, May 25, in the after¬ 
noon, after the house adjourned, he had a further conversation with 


60 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Lee O’Neil Browne in his room in the St. Nicholas Hotel, during which 
Browne said: 

“Charlie, old boy, what seems to be troubling you?” I told him: “Nothing, Lee, 
only I would like to know what the members are getting out of this proposition, or 
what I am to get out of it.” I do not remember the exact language now. He said: 
“Can’t you trust that to me, old boy?” I said: “Yes, I can do that; but I want to 
know.” He said: “You are to get $1,000, and it is ready cash, too.” I told him all 
right; that that was what I wanted. He cautioned me again about keeping quiet. 
He said: “Don’t talk to anyone. Keep this under your hat;” and he remarked again 
that he was suspicious of the little place above there that they called Joliet. (White, 
2469.) 

Mr. White further testified: 

During that conversation I did ask him what there was from the other resources. 
He said: “The jack pot won’t be distributed for about three, months after the legis¬ 
lature adjourns. There will be about that much or possibly a little more later on.” 
(2469.) 

The following day, May 26, White testifies that Mr. Browne came to 
him in the house of representatives and said: 

“This comes off on the first ballot; now, don’t forget.” 

And that he told him “All right,” and Mr. Browne told some one 
at the rear of White the same thing. (2470.) 

THE WEIGHT TO BE ATTACHED TO WHITE’S STORY. 

In considering the weight which should be attached to White’s 
story, it is to be observed that his testimony was given nearly a year 
after the date of the alleged interview, during which time White had 
confessedly spent his legislative salary, $2,130, the money received 
from Browne and Wilson, $1,900, amounting in the whole to $4,030, 
together with various sums borrowed, and at a time when he was 
badly in need of funds. It was given after he had vainly attempted 
to extort $75,000 from Mr. Lorimer on false pretenses, as shown by the 
correspondence between them which will hereinafter appear. 

Up to the time that he became the legislative agent of certain labor 
organizations before the legislature of 1907 the highest rate of wages 
he had ever received was $65 per month as street car conductor; dur¬ 
ing that session of 1907 while a member of the labor lobby at Spring- 
field he received $6 per day and his expenses, and as a result 
he quickly acquired extravagant habits and became dissipated. 
White was elected a member of the general assembly through 
the support and influence of the labor organizations, and when 
he entered the legislature in January, 1909, he was $200 in debt on 
account of election expenses; he was 28 years of age, and the 
extravagant habits contracted during his service and experience 
as a lobbyist in the session of 1907 were renewed when he re¬ 
turned to Springfield and established himself again at the St. Nich¬ 
olas Hotel. He drew his entire salary, amounting to $2,132, includ¬ 
ing mileage and stationery, in two or three installments, before the 
last of February (2460), and was borrowing money by the 1st of May 
(2461). His corrupt mind and vicious purposes are shown by the 
testimony of various witnesses, among them Thomas Curran, chair¬ 
man of the house committee on labor, who testified that after Mr. 
White, who was also a member of that committee, had joined with 
the committee in favorably reporting out the women’s 10-hour bill, 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


61 


and who was publicly for and secretly opposed to the bill, approached 
him with a proposition to “hold it up” and as he understood smother 
the bill, and that when he refused to do this, White said, “Well, I 
thought you were a good fellow.” (6251). In the testimony of Mr. 
Webb, an attorney, with whom White consulted as to “the legal 
status of a man who had accepted a portion of what he termed jack¬ 
pot money,” and in which he said he had received $850 or $900 as 
his pro rata share of the jack pot (Record, Webb, 7288), the follow¬ 
ing interpretation of the term “good fellow” is found: 

Mr. Hanecy. Did he say from whom he received the $850 or $900? 

Mr. Webb. No, sir; he did not, except that he was a member of what he termed the 
“good-fellow gang.” (7288-7289.) 

Mr. Curran further testified that White during the same conver¬ 
sation asked him “what was doing on the senatorial business yes¬ 
terday ” [the day Mr. Lorimer was elected]. Curran said he knew of 
nothing; that if there was anything doing he (White) ought to know, 
and said “Why do you ask ?” White said, “Well, I thought Browne 
was double-crossing us.” (6251-6252.) 

William M. Rossell testified that during the forty-fifth assembly, 
when he was a labor lobbyist, White proposed to him to take pictures 
of members of the house and se'nate in compromising positions and 
then go through the State, Rossell to lecture and he to show the 
pictures on a screen and so make barrels of money. (6783-6787.) 
(6667.) This condition of mind is further shown by his own con¬ 
fession of actual corruption in receiving jack-pot money and convert¬ 
ing it to his own use. 

While in his testimony White lays great stress upon his virtuous 
intention to expose corruption, there is not a single instance showing 
that he tried to carry out this high purpose, and the only exposure he 
ever attempted had for its sole purpose the extortion of money for 
the suppression of his manuscript, or the receipt by him of a large 
sum of money for the sale of the same. 

The legislature adjourned June 4, 1909, following which White 
visited O’Fallon and East St. Louis, but had no work, no position, and 
no income. About the middle of June he visited Chicago, where he 
alleges he received from Lee O’Neil Browne $900, which, with the 
$100 previously received from him, made the $1,000 to which refer¬ 
ence has been made. (White, 2483-2485.) He testifies that a month 
later he met Robert E. Wilson in St. Louis and received from him 
$900, which he admits had no connection with Mr. Lorimer’s election, 
but states that it was from the jack-pot fund. (2499.) He made 
another trip to Chicago the last of July or first of August, and about 
10 days later, accompanied by Lee O’Neil Browne and Fred T. 
Zentner, took certain lake trips, during which there was much dissipa¬ 
tion and a reckless expenditure of money. (2508.) At that time he had 
received from legislative sources $2,130 and from Browne and Wilson 
$1,900, and had borrowed sundry sums from various individuals, but 
according to his own testimony he had when he started on these trips 
from Chicago only $550. Out of this sum he loaned Browne $220. 
During the following days of dissipation the balance was so recklessly 
spent that in order to pav his hotel bill he borrowed $20 from Browne. 
(2508, White.) 


62 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


THE CONCEPTION AND GROWTH OF THE STORY. 

It was at this point, following a period of gross dissipation, when his 
funds were exhausted, that White, upon his return from the lake trips, 
in the barroom of the Briggs House, in Chicago, on August 19, 1909, 
first conceived the idea of rehabilitating himself financially by charging 
that the money he received from Lee O’Neil Browne was in consid¬ 
eration of his vote for Mr. Lorimer for Senator. At this time, in the 

E resence of William H. Sturmer and Fred Zentner, White said that 
e was going to take a trip in the fall and winter; going to his home 
in O’Fallon first, then down to New Orleans, then to Cuba, and up to 
New York; that he was going to have a big time in New York, and 
then come back home again. 

Zentner remarked that he must have a lot of money to spend. 
White said, “No; I have not a lot of money, but I am going to get 
it, and I am going to get it without working.” * * * “Well, 

that Lorimer crowd and our old pal Browne, too, have got to ‘come 
across’ good and hard when I say the word, and I am going to say 
it.” Mr. Zentner then asked him if he had anything on them. 

White replied: “No; I ain’t. I got the worst of it down there 
in Springfield, but that makes no difference. I voted for Lorimer, 
and I am a Democrat, and I can say I got money for voting for 
Lorimer. Do you suppose they can stand for it a moment ? I 
guess they will cough up when I say the word to them.” Mr. Zent¬ 
ner said, “God, you would not treat Browne that way, would you?” 
to which White replied: “I am looking out for White, and besides 
Browne would not have to pay. That bunch behind him would 
have to, and it would not hurt him.” (6355-6357, 6359-6361, 6364, 
6367, 6371, 6373-6377.) 

(Zentner. 6402.) 

So far as the evidence shows, this was the first inception of the 
jack-pot story afterwards written by Charles A. White and published 
in the Chicago Tribune April 30,. 1910. 

White testifies that he commenced to prepare the manuscript about 
the last of August or first of September, and immediately a search 
for a publisher began. (2567.) 

At the time his statement was made it was considered by Sturmer 
an idle boast, because White was intoxicated (Zentner, 6380), but 
it appears as a matter of fact that it did have foundation in White’s 
mind, and that he saw in the fact that he, a Democrat, had voted for a 
Republican, a basis for fabricating such a charge, because immedi¬ 
ately thereafter he began the preparation of his jack-pot story 
(White, 2567), and as early as September 7 following, only three 
weeks after he had asserted his purpose, he wrote Doubleday, Page 
& Co. and on September 9, Everybody’s Magazine inquiring in what 
manner they published articles of the character indicated, and in 
other letters he fully informed them of the nature of Ins manuscript. 
The correspondence with these companies continued from time to 
time down to February 11, 1910, at which date he turned the manu¬ 
script over to Doubleday, Page & Co. for examination. 

While engaged in the preparation of his story, White, on two 
or three different occasions talked, with Katherine A. Woods, owner of 
cigar stand in the Illmo Hotel, East St. Louis, with whom he had been 
on most friendly terms, telling her that he was writing a history of his 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


63 


life and of the Illinois Legislature; that he expected to make a fortune 
out of it, and that the Lorimer bunch would have to pay him enough 
money to keep him the rest of his life, and if the Lorimer bunch did not 
do it, he would make it hot for Lorimer; that he was going to run for 
Congress; that rich people of Chicago were backing him; that he had 
spent $3,000 and a lot of time in making the history of his life and of 
the Illinois Legislature, and that he was going to get it back. (7006- 
7007.) 

White further told Miss Woods that he was going to get a lot 
of money out of the Lorimer bunch—enough to take care of him 
the rest of his life, and that he was going to get something on Con¬ 
gressman Rodenberg and was going to put him out of business, and 
that he (White) would then run for Congress and settle down and get 
married. (7007.) 

The following letter to Hon. Roger C. Sullivan, Democratic 
national committeeman for Illinois, discloses another scheme on the 
part of White to obtain money. 

Forty-Sixth General Assembly, State of Illinois, 

House of Representatives, 

O’Fallon, III., September 19, 1909. 

Hon. Roger C. Sullivan, 

Chicago, III. 

My Dear Sir: My friends, by the score, are urging me to enter the race in this con¬ 
gressional district for Congress. 

I have failed to give any one of them any satisfactory answer as to what my future 
plans would be. 

Two of the leading daily newspapers have also been urging me to enter the race, 
and want to begin booming me as a probable candidate. 

What is your opinion of the matter? 

Do you think it advisable for me to permit them to use my name? 

I feel confident that Wm. Rodenberg, our present Representative in Congress, will 
be a candidate for reelection. I realize it will take a large sum of money to put up 
the right kind of a fight and do not know that much money could be raised here. 

I would not consent for the use of my name unless there was the proper assurance 
of sufficient funds to carry on a stampede campaign. 

I feel more than confident that I could carry St. Clair and Madison Counties, and, 
with sufficient backing, could get an even break in Bond County, and a little better 
than an even break in the remaining counties. 

Kindly drop me a line and express your opinion on the subject. 

With best wishes, I remain, 

Respectfully, yours, Chas. A. White. 

And the answer, dated September 23, 1909, is as follows: 

September 23, 1909. 

Hon. Chas. A. White, 

O’ Fallon, III. 

My Dear Sir: Your letter of the 19th instant received and contents noted. I 
really do not know how to advise you in reference to your candidacy for Congress. 
I realize you would make a strong run, and the district is not overwhelmingly Repub¬ 
lican. In reference to finances, will say the State committee has no funds whatever 
to give to any candidates, the treasury being completely exhausted, and I know of 
no place outside of your district where funds could be secured. 

Wishing you all the success in the world, I remain, 

Very sincerely, yours, Roger C. Sullivan. 

(Record 4386-87.) 

About Thanksgiving time, 1909, he told Miss Woods that he had 
been to Chicago several times; to watch the Chicago papers, for. he 
was going to make enough out of the Lorimer bunch to live comfort- 

S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2-5 


64 


ELECTION' OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


ably, and that when he got the trouble started he was going on a trip 
to Europe and to let them fight it out. (7008.) 

About centennial week, in St. Louis, 1909, White told Miss Woods, 
‘ ‘ I have got it in for Lorimer, Senator Lorimer and his bunch, and they 
will have to come across or I will make them pay dearly for it. I have 
spent $5,000 this session having a good time and looking up the dope 
on them. I have a friend in Chicago who will back me up and furnish 
me all the money I want.” (7008, 7009.) 

The last conversation between Miss Woods and White on these mat¬ 
ters was on April 20, 1910, when he told her to watch the newspapers; 
that it would come out in the newspapers in about two weeks. 

Meantime, soon after his Thanksgiving talk with Miss Woods, 
having failed to secure from Mr. Sullivan any promise of “a large 
sum of money” and having also failed in his efforts with the publish¬ 
ing companies, on December 4, 1909, Mr. White, pursuant to the 
plan and purpose indicated, addressed to Senator Lorimer the fol¬ 
lowing letter: 

O’Fallon, 111., December 4, 1909. 

Hon. William H. Lorimer, 

Washington , D. C. 

My Dear Sir: I am preparing to place before the people of this country an article 
I have written giving my true experience as a member of the Illinois Legislature. 
The article will appear either in book form or will be published in one of the largest 
magazines in the United States. 

I have just completed the manuscript, which contains about 30,000 words, giving 
in detail my absolutely true experiences as a member of the forty-sixth assembly. 
As yet I have not closed a deal with any publishing house, but when my terms are 
acceptable will dispose of it. 

I have been offered a sum sufficient to value the manuscript at about $2.50 per word. 

Believing that you would be more deeply interested in the works and actions of 
the members of the last session of the Illinois Legislature, owing to the fact that 
possibly your experience with that general assembly will be one of the questions 
freely discussed, and assuring you that I have severed all connections with the party 
leaders, as well as am to be independent in the future in all my political dealings, 
I am, 

Respectfully, yours, Chas. A. White. 

Senator Lorimer replied as follows: 

United States Senate, 

December 13, 1909. 

Hon. Charles A. White, 

O'Fallon, III. 

My Dear Sir: I am in receipt of your letter of December 4, in which you advise me 
that you have manuscript ready to place with the publishers, treating on your experi¬ 
ence as a member of the Illinois Legislature I would be very glad, indeed, to note 
your success as an author. 

With kindest personal regards, I am, 

Yours, very truly, Wm. Lorimer. 

(2556-2557.) 

White testified before the committee that he had then received 
no offer for the manuscript, but that he hoped to receive a reply from 
Mr. Lorimer that would be of advantage, adding, “I had no evidence 
against Senator Lorimer directly and had no dealings with him,” 
and before the first investigating committee he testified that if Sena¬ 
tor Lorimer had met his demand and paid him $75,000, he would have 
surrendered the manuscript to him. (Burrows, Record, 164.) 

Late in February, Doubleday, Page & Co. returned the manuscript 
to White, with the statement that it would take at least six months 
to investigate the story, and they did not have men whom they 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


65 


could spare to do that work. Thereafter White was looking for 
a purchaser for his story, and was eventually brought into contact 
with James Keeley, editor and general manager of the Chicago Trib¬ 
une, which paper had for 20 years or more been opposed to Mr. Lori¬ 
mer pohtically, its policy being, as stated by Mr. Keeley, to drive 
William Lorimer out of politics in Chicago and Illinois because they 
thought he was a malign influence. 

The committee does not undertake to determine the merits of the 
controversy between the Tribune and Mr. Lorimer, concerning which 
there is much testimony, but finds the fact that Mr. Keeley, the 
present manager of the Tribune, was so intent upon carrying out the 
policy of his paper that he was glad to secure at large expense any 
information which would enable him to accomplish that result. 

In this connection it should be stated that State’s Attorney Wav- 
man, to whose examination the manuscript had been submitted, 
testified that he called Mr. Keeley’s attention to the fact that it 
would be a very expensive proposition to investigate, and Mr. Keeley 
replied that the Tribune would be willing to pav the expenses of such 
investigation. (5743, 5809.) 

After several conferences between Mr. Keeley and Mr. White in 
which White first demanded $50,000 for the manuscript the jack-pot 
story was finally purchased by the Tribune in consideration of 
the payment to White of $3,500, and his agreement “to devote my 
time and services to substantiate the story referred to as and when 
requested by you so to do and in such manner as you may direct.” 

The complete contract appears hereafter in this report. The story 
was published in the Chicago Tribune on April 30. 1910. Immedi¬ 
ately following its publication White was called as a witness before 
Cook County grand jury. 

The evidence shows that in the prosecutions which followed and 
which were based upon White’s story the county of Cook expended 
the sum of $18,952.43 (Record, 5913) and the Tribune Co. in and 
about the same purpose expended about $20,000. (Record, 2023.) 

CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH WHITE TESTIFIED. 

It was upon White’s testimony that Lee O’Neil Browne was indicted 
on the charge of having bribed him to vote for Mr. Lorimer; it was 
upon White’s testimony that the State relied at both trials of Lee 
O’Neil Browne upon such charge, and of which charge Mr. Browne 
was acquitted and discharged. White also testified before the sub¬ 
committee of the Committee on Privileges and Elections of the 
United States Senate, in the months of September and October, 1910, 
as well as before this committee. 

In considering the value of the testimony so given by White on all 
these different occasions the fact should not be overlooked that he 
was in charge of an officer detailed by the State’s attorney of Cook 
County, in whose custody he remained day and night during the 
entire period extending from April 29, 1910, when the contract for 
the sale of the jack-pot story between the Tribune and White was 
signed, down to December 23, 1910—a period of eight months—with 
all of his living and traveling expenses paid by Cook County, and he 
was not discharged from custody until two days after the report of 


66 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


the Committee on Privileges and Elections had been made to the 
United States Senate, although the last trial of Lee O’Neil Browne 
ended on September 9, 1910, and the hearings of the subcommittee 
in Chicago ended October 8, 1910. 

The methods adopted to hold White to his obligation and the 
expense thereby incurred and paid by Cook County are found in the 
following affidavit: 


State of Illinois, County of Cook, ss: 

Walter Kossack, being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is bookkeeper 
and cashier in the office of the State’s attorney of Cook County, and held such position 
during all of the year 1910; that he has made an investigation of the accounts on file in 
the office of the State’s attorney of Cook County to determine the total expense of the 
maintenance of one Charles A. White, a witness in the case of People v. Browne and 
others, and that he finds the fact to be that the witness, Charles A. White, was, on 
May 5, 1910, placed in charge of James Kerr, a police officer of the city of Chicago 
assigned to duty in the State’s attorney’s office, and remained in charge of such officer 
until August 16, 1910; and that on August 16, 1910, Officer Kerr was relieved of that 
duty and the witness, White, placed in charge of Officer Oakey, and remained in charge 
of Officer Oakey until September 26, 1910, when Officer Oakey was relieved of that 
duty and the witness. White, placed in charge of Officer Hepp until December 23, 
1910, when he was relieved; and from December 23, 1910, until January 16, 1911, the 
witness, White, remained at the Lexington Hotel not in charge of any officer, but at the 
expense of Cook County. 

Affiant further states that the total expense thus incurred was twenty-five hundred 
thirty-one dollars and fifty-two cents ($2,531.52); and 

Affiant further states that this amount covers the expense and keep of both White 
and the officer during the period above named, and that the rooms alone at the Lexing¬ 
ton Hotel, exclusive of board, cost ten hundred sixty-eight dollars and seventeen 
cents ($1,068.17), and that the officer while in charge of White paid for the meals both 
of White and himself, and also this amount covers railroad fare and expense while the 
officer and White were out of the State. 

And further affiant says not. Walter Kossack. 


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of November, A. D. 1911. 
[seal.] Bert E. Betts, 

Notary Public. 

(Record, 6120.) 


Mr. White’s testimony was first given before the grand jury of 
Cook County within a week after he had entered into and become 
bound by a contract with the Tribune Co., which reads as follows: 


To Charles A. White: 


The Chicago Tribune, Office of Publisher, 

Chicago, III., April 29, 1910. 


You offered to sell to us for publication a story written by you, which story gives 
your experience while a member of the House of Representatives of Illinois during 
1909-10, and giving also certain information as to what transpired by reason of your 
voting for certain measures, etc., while a member of such house. 

We refused to pay you for that story or to print the same unless such story was verified 
and corroborated by persons selected by the Tribune. 

For more than four weeks we, with your cooperation, through different agencies 
have caused your story to be fully investigated. 

For the sole and exclusive right hereby granted by you to the Tribune Co. to publish 
this story, or a revision thereof, or excerpts therefrom, in the Chicago Tribune and 
copyright it either in your name or in that of the Tribune Co., but in which shall be at 
our election, and also in full compensation for the time already spent by you in assisting 
us in obtaining corroborative evidence of the facts contained in this story and in full 
payment for all your time which shall be devoted by you to further substantiate this 
story at any time, which time you hereby agree to devote to that purpose as and when 
called upon so to do, the Tribune Co. hereby agrees to pay you $3,250, of which said 
sum $1,250 shall be paid upon the printing of the said story or the first installment 
thereof, $1,000 30 days after said first payment, and $1,000 60 days thereafter. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER, 


67 


You reserve to yourself all book or other rights to the story other than the exclusive 
newspaper rights hereinbefore referred to, which belong under the terms hereof to 
the Tribune Co. 

J. Keeley, Vice President Tribune Co. 


To the Chicago Tribune and the Tribune Co. 


Chicago, III., April —, 1910 . 


Gentlemen: I have read the above and foregoing and agree to the terms thereof 
and to accept the sums of money as therein set forth, and I further agree to devote my 
time and services to substantiate the story referred to as and when requested by you 
so to do and in such manner as you may direct. 

Charles A. White. 


At tlie time the Tribune company contemplated the purchase of 
White’s jack-pot story, they were advised by Mr. Wayman, the 
State’s attorney, that White, being an accomplice, would discount his 
evidence 50 per cent; the Tribune buying the story would discount 
it 30 per cent more, so that White would be a 20-per cent witness. 
(Wayman, 5809.) 

The estimate thus placed upon the story by Mr. Wayman was un¬ 
doubtedly a fair one from his viewpoint at that time, but in the light 
of all of the circumstances which have since developed, the com¬ 
mittee is of the opinion that the story is a pure fabrication so far as 
it relates to the election of Senator Lorimer. 

As he makes his case it is this: He never heard the name of William 
Lorimer mentioned in connection with the Senatorship prior to the 
night of May 24, 1909, two days before his election. By four wit¬ 
nesses this is disproved, and his own conduct corroborates these 
witnesses. (Lorimer, 7646;‘O’Neill, 6648-6654, 6655, 6656; Shaw, 
6283, 6818, 6819, 6820; Browne, 4918.) 

To Mr. Browne’s inquiry whether he could vote for a Republican, 
White answered without hesitation that he would vote for Mr. Lorimer; 
he did this before he knew who among his Democratic friends would do 
the same; that it was not until after he had promised to vote for him, 
and assured Mr. Browne that he could be relied upon that he had the 
curiosity to inquire regarding other of Browne’s followers in the legis¬ 
lature. There was not the slightest need for Mr. Browne to mention 
“chicken feed” to him or to hold out any inducement. That such is 
the case is apparent from the face of the story. 

From the foregoing history of its inception, its development, and 
the uses to which it was put, Mr. White’s story is so thoroughly dis¬ 
credited that it could have no weight in any court of law. The 
acquittal of Lee O’Neil Browne by an impartial jury is an evidence 
of this fact. It is a significant fact that when White testified at the 
first trial of Lee O’Neil Browne, which occurred in June, 1910, and 
resulted in a disagreement of the jury, no attempt was made to 
corroborate his story of the interview which he claims to have had 
with Lee O’Neil Browne on the night of May 24, 1909, by the pro¬ 
duction as witnesses of Otis V. and Sidney C. Yarbrough, who, it is 
now contended, were present when Browne visited White’s room. 
They first made their appearance at the second Browne trial which 
occurred in Chicago late in August, 1910, and which resulted in his 
acquittal. It is also a significant fact that the Yarbroughs were not 
produced as witnesses before the subcommittee of the Committee on 
rrivileges and Elections of the Senate, which convened in Chicago 



68 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


in less than two weeks after the acquittal of Lee O’Neil Browne y 
before which committee Mr. Austrian, counsel for the Tribune con¬ 
ducted the prosecution, and who submitted to that committee the 
names of witnesses to be called. 

Both Sidney C. and Otis Y. Yarbrough were brought before this 
committee, and both testified that they spent the night of May 24, 
1909, in the room of Charles A. White in the St. Nicholas Hotel in 
Springfield and were there when Lee O’Neil Browne entered that 
room and invited White to go to his room, where the alleged inter¬ 
view with Browne was held. The production of these witnesses, it 
seems to the committee, destroys the story of White. They attempt 
to corroborate White’s statement of what occurred in his room on 
that occasion, while the evidence conclusively establishes the fact 
that Sidney Yarbrough was not in the city of Springfield at that 
time. 

Both the Yarbroughs testify that they went to Springfield from 
East St. Louis on Monday, May 24, 1909, Sidney being positive that 
he went up on White’s pass on the Illinois Traction (5086-5092), 
and Otis claiming that he probably went that day and met Sidney in 
the lobby of the St. Nicholas Hotel that evening about 9 or 10 o’clock. 
(5081-5083, 5515-5517, 5170-5175, 5214-5250.) 

On the other hand Lee O’Neil Browne not only denies having any 
such interview with White, but the testimony conclusively establishes 
the fact that Sidney Yarbrough was in Chicago that night and that 
neither of them could have been from East St. Louis that day. It is 
shown conclusively that White and the two Yarbroughs were in 
Chicago from the Saturday, May 22, and that they spent Sunday and 
Monday in that city in dissipation, and, according to their own ad¬ 
missions, a portion of the time in a house of ill fame. (Otis Yar¬ 
brough, 5195-5202.) It is clear that Otis Yarbrough and White did 
not leave Chicago until Monday night, May 24 (Gloss, 6444-6491, 
6567), and the train was so late that they did not reach Springfield 
until 11.41, instead of on schedule time, which was 11.15; and it is 
shown that White did not register and was not assigned to a room 
until after midnight. 

WHITE INTENDED TO VOTE FOR LORIMER. 

It is clear that White intended to join the great throng of Demo¬ 
crats who intended to vote for Mr. Lorimer, for the reason that a 
Democratic Senator could not be elected, and they were unalterably 
opposed to the reelection of Senator Hopkins. This is made clear 
by the first expression given by White alter the election explaining 
the reason for his vote in the following letter, which was written 
before he conceived the idea of extorting money by blackmail: 

Springfield, III., May 29, 1909. 

Hon. Fred J. Kern, Bellville, III. 

My Dear Mr. Kern : I received the copy of your paper, the News-Democrat, 
and read with great interest your editorial relative to the position of the 
Democratic members of the legislature taken in settling the longest drawn-out 
senatorial contest ever experienced in the history of the State of Illinois. 

It gives me pleasure to know that there are men in public life prominent 
in the Democratic Party who can look upon a situation of this character with 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LOEIMER. 


69 


as broad and liberal views as yon Lave expressed yourself through the edi¬ 
torial of your valuable paper. The Republican Party of this State is, as has 
been demonstrated in this present session of the legislature, divided in such a 
manner that it was practically impossible, beyond any reasonable doubt, for 
them to settle this long and expensive drawn-out contest; and, feeling that the 
State of Illinois should be represented in the United States Senate during 
these critical moments by a man from this State, I felt it a public duty, after 
careful conference with older and more experienced workers in the Democratic 
ranks, to cast my vote for the Hon. William H. Lorimer for United States 
Senator. 

This contest has been carried on now for five months, and I voted upon each 
ballot for a Democratic candidate, and realizing that the State has been put 
to an expense of many thousands of dollars through the disruption in the Re¬ 
publican ranks, I believed that it was a charitable act, in the interest of the 
taxpayers and the whole people of the State of Illinois, for the Democratic 
Party here in the house and senate to step in and settle their unsolved and un¬ 
compromising difficulties, and relieve the State of the suspension and anxiety 
connected with torture and extravagance which they have carried on here for 
these long-drawn-out months. 

I again wish to express my sincere thanks to you and your editorial staff for 
the kind sentiment you have expressed publicly in defense of the Democratic 
Party’s action here. True, I expect condemnation from both Democrats and 
Republicans for my action here in voting for a Republican; but, however that 
may be. I presume that no man in public life is exempt from criticism at some 
time or other, and knowing that I was here, where the situation was constantly 
before me, and that it was my duty to take some step in the interest of the 
people, I did the best my judgment would permit me to do under the prevail¬ 
ing circumstances. You may state, if you desire, the substance of my communi¬ 
cation to you through your, press, that there may be no misunderstanding as to 
the motive of not only myself, but of the 53 loyal Democrats that voted for a 
Republican for United States Senator. With best wishes, I remain, 

Your friend, 

Chas. A. White. 


(Record, 2475.) 


For more than a week prior to the election of Mr. Lorimer and be¬ 
fore his alleged interview with Browne it had been the intention of 
White to vote for him if an opportunity to do so occurred. 

Mr. Lorimer testified— 


About 10 days before I was elected—8 or 10 days—I met him in the house of repre¬ 
sentatives, and he volunteered that he was going to vote for me. He said he under¬ 
stood that I was going to be a candidate, and if I was he would vote for me (7646). 

Mr. Lorimer stated in that connection that 95 per cent of the 
street car men in Chicago always voted for him, because of the fact 
that he had been one of them, and he received the impression that 
White was going to vote for him (7646) for the same reason. 

John O'Neill, business agent of the Firemen’s Association of Chicago, 
who represented the Chicago Federation of Labor before the forty- 
sixth general assembly in 1909 and who became acquainted with 
White during that time, testified (6648-6654) that in conversation 
with White about a week before the election, he expressed the wish 
that they might break the deadlock because all their legislation was 
tied up by it. White said he thought it would not last much longer, 

, and inquired “Who do you think will be the man?" To which Mr. 
O’Neill replied: 

I do not know, but if you ask me, Charlie, as a Democrat, I will tell you what I 
think: If I was a Democrat and a member of the house, knowing Mr. Lorimer as I do, 
and from what I hear of Senator Hopkins, 1 certainly would not hesitate in voting 
for Lorimer if there is not anv possible chance of electing a Democrat. (6655.) 


70 


ELECTION OF WILLIaM LORIMER. 


White then asked him if he knew Mr. Lorimer very well, and he 
replied, “I have known him pretty nearly all my life.” White said: 

A great many of the boys seem to think the same of him, and I would not be sur¬ 
prised if a great many of them will vote for him—meaning the Democratic members. 
(O’Neill, 6655-6656.) 

Homer A. Shaw, Democrat, and a banker, who was chairman of 
an organization of Democrats who were endeavoring to hold their 
forces in sufficient numbers to make impossible the election of Mr. 
Lorimer (6283), testified that three or four days before, or possibly a 
week before, the election of Mr. Lorimer, Mr. White made to him the 
assertion ‘ ‘ th at he would vote for Bill Lorimer if he got a chance ”(6818), 
and Mr. Shaw says “I told him that I thought it would be a very 
unwise thing for him to do; that he was a new man in his district and 
was undoubtedly well thought of there at the time; and that knowing, 
as I did, the character of the people in his district, I thought it would 
be a very unwise thing for him to do. He made the remark, in sub¬ 
stance, that he did not give a damn what the people thought about it; 
he was going to do it anyway. I think I told him, to the best of my 
recollection, that if he did do this and went back to O’Fallon, his best 
friends would not have anything to do with him—would not speak to 
him” (6819). 

Mr. Shaw took this position not because of any personal opposition 
to Mr. Lorimer, but because he considered it bad policy; “just simply 
a matter of party politics. He “thought it was a very bad idea for 
any Democrat to vote for a Republican for Senator” (6818-6819). 

Further testifying, Mr. Shaw says that on the first or second day of 
the first extra session of the forty-sixth assemby (which was in the 
autumn of 1909) he had a talk with White in his seat in the Illinois 
House of Representatives, at which time White “grunted” at him in 
response to his greeting, and after finishing his mail Mr. Shaw turned 
and said: 

“ What is the matter with you, Charlie?” “Oh,” he said, “I am sore atmyself and 
sore at the world and sore at everybody in general.” I said, “What has gone wrong 
with you?” He said, “Well, about everything that you told me would happen to 
me if I voted for Lorimer has happened to me, and a great many more.” I said, 
“W T hy, what else has happened to you?” He said, “My best friends walk across the 
street to keep from speaking to me.” (6820.) 

Lee O’Neil Browne testified that the only conversation worthy of 
the name relative to the matter of candidacy of Mr. Lorimer which 
he had with Mr. White occurred in the lobby of the St. Nicholas Hotel, 
something in the neighborhood of a week before the election, and in 
this connection Mr. Browne says: 

I do not just now recollect how the conversation came up, whether I asked him if 
he could vote for Senator Lorimer or whether he first broached the subject; but in 
any event he said to me that he felt very kindly toward Senator Lorimer, felt favor¬ 
able to his candidacy, and that he was going to vote for him and had told Mr. Lor¬ 
imer that he was going to do so—had already told him so himself. I do not think 
he told me where he had told him that. He further said to me, “Lorimer is a good 
friend of organized labor, or the labor men tell me so, and for that reason I feel very 
kindly toward him. I understand that he has been a street-car man and came up 
from a street-car man, and,” he said, “lam one, too, and for these reasons I am going 
to vote for Senator Lorimer.” * * * And because he had made up his mind to 
vote for Senator Lorimer I am inclined to think that he was the one who broached 
the subject to me instead of me broaching it to him. (Browne, 4918.) 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


71 


From a most exhaustive examination and painstaking considera¬ 
tion of all the testimony in the case, the committee finds that White 
was one of the 53 Democrats in the Legislature of Illinois who for good 
and valid reasons felt justified in voting for Mr. Lorimer in order to 
break the deadlock which had existed in that body for so many months, 
and that- White’s attempt to enrich himself at the expense of his own 
reputation was the result of an afterthought and of a purpose which 
he conceived at a time when he had reached the lowest depths of 
degradation. 

DANIEL W. HOLSTLAW. 

The case of Daniel W. Holstlaw, member of the State Senate of 
Illinois, stands alone and is independent of all others. He is a land- 
owner, country banker, and cattle jobber, and was worth from 
$100,000 to $200,000. 

Senator Holstlaw was elected as a Democrat and during the long 
senatorial contest which continued month after month, he consistently 
supported the Democratic nominee for United States Senator, Mr. 
Stringer. It appears, however, that like most of the members of the 
legislature, he became exceedingly weary, and about four weeks prior 
to the election of Mr. Lorimer he discussed with a considerable number 
of his friends in his district the probability of ending the struggle, 
and the manner in which this might possibly be accomplished. The 
project of selecting some Republican other than Senator Hopkins, 
whom the Democrats could support, was one of the plans proposed. 
Among these friends was Mr. J. B. Lewis, editor of the Democrat, a 
newspaper published in his district, who evidently favored the plan 
last outlined, because the evidence is that he requested Senator 
Holstlaw to support Mr. Lorimer for the Senatorship if the time came 
when he could, and Senator Holstlaw assured him that he would do 
so. Senator Holstlaw stated to several of his friends that if a Dem¬ 
ocrat could not be elected he intended to vote for some Republican 
rather than remain in Springfield very much longer, and added that if 
such an opportunity came he would favor Mr. Lorimer. (Record, 
3017.) Among those with whom he had similar conversations were 
Mr. J. J. Bell, Democrat, and Mr. John Eddings, Republican. (3017.) 

The committee is fully convinced that Senator Holstlaw intended 
for a considerable time before the deadlock ended to support Mr. 
Lorimer, if the opportunity should offer. From the testimony of 
Senator Holstlaw it appears that for some days before May 26, 1909, 
the Democrats in the legislature were generally willing to adopt that 
course; that he found from inquiry that there were more who felt 
that way than he had supposed; that they were worn out by the long 
strain, and (in view of the fact that the salary of members of the 
general assembly is fixed by law at $2,000 for the entire term) the 
burden of remaining so long in Springfield at their own expense 
was felt, so that, all things considered, they deemed it good pol¬ 
icy on the part of the Democrats to elect Mr. Lorimer rather than 
to continue the deadlock, and they were not sure they could 
prevent the election of a Republican who might be less acceptable 
to them. Senator Holstlaw, in common with the other Demo¬ 
crats, cast his vote for Mr. Lorimer on the last ballot. No ques¬ 
tion of his honesty in so doing would ever have arisen had it not 


72 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


been for the fact that during the same session of the legislature 
he had become a member of a commission to select and purchase 
furniture—chairs and desks—for the Senate and House (3051), and 
during the investigations made by the State’s attorney of Sangamon 
County soon after the publication of White’s jack-pot story a letter 
had fallen into his hands which had been written by Senator Holstlaw 
to Mr. Knox, a representative of a furniture company, arranging a 
meeting between them regarding this furniture deal. Senator Holst¬ 
law was summoned before the grand jury of Sangamon County. 
(3037-3038, 3079, 5568.) The evidence discloses the fact, which 
Senator Holstlaw freely admits (3049-3057), that he entered into 
a corrupt agreement with the representatives of a furniture company 
by which he was to receive SI,500 in consideration of favoring the 
bid made by the company so represented. 

When Senator Holstlaw appeared before the grand jury of Sanga¬ 
mon County he swore that he had not written such a letter to Mr. 
Knox, and upon this testimony he was at once indicted for perjury, and 
placed under arrest within two hours after he left the grand-jury room. 
(3038.) He was much alarmed by his arrest, and immediately asked 
the deputy sheriff who had him in custody to convey his request to the 
State’s attorney to be permitted to go again before the grand jury and 
correct the mistake he had made, but he testifies that he received 
word in reply that he would not be allowed to do so unless he “would 
tell all about the Lorimer deal” because the State’s attorney felt that 
he knew something about it. (3038.) This message from the State’s 
attorney caused him still greater agitation, but suggested a way of 
escaping from his troubles. By the advice of the officer in whose 
custody he was he at once retained the firm of Gillespie & Fitzgerald, 
attorneys at Springfield, as counsel, who arranged for his bail by the 
deposit of his personal check for $5,000, and for a professional con¬ 
sultation the next morning. (3039.) During the night that fol¬ 
lowed Senator Holstlaw was deeply distressed, and it appears from 
his testimony that his thoughts centered around the problem of how 
best to free himself from his difficulties. His sin in connection with 
the furniture deal had found him out, and as it now appears, he was 
also conscious that after the adjournment in June, 1909, of the legis¬ 
lature he had received from Senator John Broderick, of Chicago, the 
sum of $3,200 for the payment of which he had never given any 
reasonable or legitimate explanation. 

The consideration for such payment to him by Broderick does not 
directly appear in the evidence and can only be surmised. Whatever 
it may have been, Senator Holstlaw saw in the fact of having received 
the money an opportunity to take advantage of the intimation of the 
State’s attorney and save himself. The result was that on the 
following morning he informed his counsel, so he testifies, that he 
wanted to make a clean breast of the matter and secure immunity from 
further prosecution of himself. (3043.) The predominant thought in 
his mind was to secure immunity. He testified to this over and over 
again, and he was willing to do anything to secure it. After con¬ 
sultation with his counsel (3043) they prepared a statement setting 
forth in the form of questions and answers the story of his infamy, 
from which it appears he was to receive $1,500 as soon as the furniture 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 73 

was delivered. Among other things contained in that statement was 
the following: 

Q. You are a Democrat, are you not?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you vote for Lorimer for United States Senator?—A. I did. 

Q. Before the voting came off was anything said to you about paying you anything 
for voting for Lorimer?—A. There was. ‘ 

Q. Who talked to you on that subject, and what was said?—A. Senator Broderick, 
of Chicago. He said to me: “Mr. Lorimer is going to be elected to-morrow”—that is, 
as well as I remember the date, and he said: “There is $2,500 for you if you want to 
vote that way and the next morning I voted for him. 

Q. Did you tell Mr. Broderick that you would vote for Mr. Lorimer?—A. I do not 
know whether I did or not, but I think I did. (Record, 3046.) 

In his testimony before this Committee, as well as before the other 
senatorial committee, and upon the trial of John Broderick, Senator 
Holstlaw completely reverses the foregoing statement, and says that 
before Mr. Broderick made the remark, “ There is $2,500 for you if 
you want to vote that way,” he had told Senator Broderick that he 
was going to vote for Mr. Lorimer, and throughout his testimony 
he insists that such is the fact; that it had been his determination 
for days and weeks before the election, if an opportunity to vote for 
Mr. Lorimer presented itself, to do so, and that he would have voted 
for him under any circumstances and conditions, so strong was his 
desire to do so. (3047.) And he further testifies that he was not 
influenced by what Senator Broderick said, because he intended to 
vote for Mr. Lorimer anyway. (3019.) 

John Broderick was afterwards indicted for having bribed Holstlaw 
to vote for Mr. Lorimer, tried in Sangamon County, and acquitted of 
the charge. In that trial Mr. Holstlaw testified as he did before this 
committee, as follows (referring to Senator Broderick): 

He was standing out in front of the St. Nick, and I happened to step out, and we 
were talking, and he said, “Senator Lorimer will be elected to-morrow.” I said, “I 
think so, and I am going to vote for him.” He said, “You are? ” I said, “Yes, sir.” 
He said, “If you want to vote that way, there is $2,500 for you.” 

Mr. Marble. What did you say? 

Mr. Holstlaw. I did not say a word. (3018.) 

And he testifies that no further conversation followed. 

Senator Broderick stoutly denies that any such conversation ever 
took place between them, and while the committee is satisfied that 
Broderick did pay Holstlaw $2,500 at one time and $700 at another 
time in the summer of 1909, there is nothing whatever in the evidence 
connecting these payments with Senator Holstlaw’s support of Mr. 
Lorimer for the Senatorship. The evidence shows conclusively that 
Senator Holstlaw’s only reason for linking Mr. Lorimer’s name with 
that transaction was to satisfy the State’s attorney of Sangamon 
County, and through him to secure an order of immunity from the 
court, in which he was successful. He testifies that his attorneys 
told him he would have to sign that statement to satisfy the State’s 
attorney, and that without it the latter would not grant him immunity 
or dismiss the indictment pending against him. (3081.) He further 
testifies that after this consultation, and before the statement was 

E repared, his attorneys conferred with the State’s attorney, and 
rought him word that if he wanted to go ahead and tell the whole 
story to do so and he would get immunity. (3047.) 


74 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


It was under these circumstances that the statement was prepared 
and presented to the State's attorney, and Ilolstlaw also testifies 
(3048) that Mr. Fitzgerald went with him to the office of the State's 
attorney, turned over to the latter the statement, whereupon Mr. 
Burke asked him to go with him before the judge and have the immu¬ 
nity order entered, and that was done, and he was discharged and 
never again heard about the indictment. (3048.) Mr. Fitzgerald 
corroborates this. (4705-4732.) 

The committee is satisfied that Broderick never suggested to Hoist- 
law that there would be $2,500 for him upon his statement that he was 
going to vote for Lorimer, and that he never received it, was prom¬ 
ised, or expected to receive a dollar for such vote. (3086-3087.) 

Senator Ilolstlaw testifies that he would not have voted for any 
Republican other than Lorimer for anything on earth. (3087.) 

The circumstances connected with the election of Senator Holstlaw 
to the State senate may throw some light upon the probable source 
of the money he received from Senator Broderick. As before stated, 
Senator Holstlaw is a man who professes to stand for good things, 
and in regard to the liquor problems which have challenged public 
attention in Illinois, poses as a ‘ ‘dry"—an advocate of the temperance 
cause. The district which he represented in the State senate was 
composed of four counties, two “wets" and two “drys." Efforts 
were made to ascertain the approximate amount of his campaign 
expenses, but he evaded giving this information. While admitting 
that it was a considerable amount, he would not swear it was not 
$5,000 (5550-5552), but intimated that it might have been in the 
neighborhood of $3,000 (5551), which sum would, in the opinion of the 
committee, look like an enormous price to him to be paid for an elec¬ 
tion, upon which he was to have a return of $2,000 in salary. In 
Marion, his home county, and in Clay, both 1 ‘dry " counties, he ran far 
behind, and was defeated by over 5,000 majority; but in Effingham 
and Clinton, both ‘ ‘wet" counties, he received a majority large enough 
to overcome the loss sustained in the other two counties, and to elect 
him to the general assembly, Clinton being the county in which he 
made his greatest gains. (550-555.) 

Although a Democrat and the candidate of the Democratic Party, 
he received the enthusiastic support of G. N. Welch, a Republican, 
and a saloon keeper in Clinton County, as well as that of his numerous 
friends. (5557.) All the circumstances lead to the conclusion that 
Senator Holstlaw was elected to the Illinois Senate by the so-called 
“wets" of his district, a most suggestive fact, when considered in 
connection with the other fact that the $3,200 was paid to him by 
John Broderick, likewise a Democrat, and a saloon keeper of 17 or 18 
years' standing in Chicago. (3903-3904.) This is particularly sig¬ 
nificant in view of the fact that Senator Holstlaw, grasping as he is 
in financial matters, could not or would not make any definite state¬ 
ment to this committee concerning the expenses incurred by him in 
his campaign, nor did he see fit to give any reason why Senator 
Broderick should pay him $3,200. In his confusion and desperation 
he set up the claim that he regarded it as a gift, but did not know 
why it was made, and did not care to know (2110); that he had no 
curiosity to know (3111); that he did not tell his family, and after 
studying about it, felt a delicacy about saying anything concerning 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


75 


it; that it did not impress him as improper at the time (3114), but 
tin ally admitted it “ might be a little improper.” (3114-3117.) 

From a consideration of all the circumstances, the committee is 
satisfied that Holstlaw was the candidate of the liquor interests in 
his senatorial district and was elected by them; that he was sub¬ 
jected to large campaign expenses, and money being dearer to him 
than his reputation, and feel convinced that he would not be likely 
to incur such expenses unless assured that he would be reimbursed. 
It is conceded that liquor legislation has been one of the prominent 
and continuing elements in the Illinois General Assembly, and John 
Broderick being a saloon keeper in the city of Chicago, was naturally 
a representative of the liquor interests, and money passing from him 
to Holstlaw is a feature of the case so suggestive, in the absence of 
any other consideration for its payment, as to raise a strong presump¬ 
tion at least that its payment had some connection with the election 
of Mr. Holstlaw to the Senate of Illinois. 

Everything connected with the evidence given by Senator Holstlaw 
indicates that his love of money is a consuming passion; that it 
dominates his judgment, deadens his conscience, and destroys his 
regard for truth. 

TESTIMONY OF CO AN BEFORE HELM COMMITTEE. 

In the debate on the reopening of this case in the Senate particular 
reference was made to the testimony of M. B. Coan, employed as an 
investigator by the Helm committee, given before that committee, 
in which he named certain persons who were supposed to be pos¬ 
sessed of valuable information bearing upon the question at issue, in 
view of which the committee summoned such persons as witnesses, 
without securing any evidence of the character indicated by Mr. Coan 
in his testimony. (Record, O'Brien, 688-700-705; Jones, 705-720; 
Culver, 721-742; McLean, 742-747; McLeod, 748-755.) 

POLITICAL CONDITIONS IN ILLINOIS AND THE INFLUENCES WHICH LED 
TO THE ELECTION OF SENATOR LORIMER. 

In the Senate and throughout the United States there has been an 
unprecedented interest in the circumstances connected with the elec¬ 
tion of Mr. Lorimer to the United States Senate. The evidence taken 
before this committee sheds light on many of these circumstances, 
removing some misapprehension heretofore prevailing, and establish¬ 
ing certain facts heretofore unknown, and demonstrating that Mr. 
Lorimer’s election was the natural outcome of the political conditions 
then existing in Illinois, and that it was brought about without resort¬ 
ing to corrupt practices either on his part or the part of his friends. 

All the evidence tends to show that the personal popularity of Mr. 
Lorimer had given him a remarkable following throughout the State, 
and particularly in Chicago. On the other hand, he was the object of 
the most bitter opposition from certain newspapers and certain 
influential persons. 

When political conditions so developed in the Forty-sixth General 
Assembly of the State of Illinois that the different factions of the 
Republican membership of that body could not unite in the election 


76 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


of any other person as Senator from that State, his election followed 
as a natural consequence. 

A glance at the political situation in Illinois during the four years 
preceding Mr. Lorimer’s election to the Senate helps to disclose the 
conditions existing at the time of his election. For many years prior 
to 1904, as well as since, most of the Chicago newspapers, led by the 
Chicago Tribune, had persistently opposed Mr. Lorimer politically. 
The relation between Mr. Lorimer and Gov. Deneen prior to that year 
was that of warm personal and political friendship. (Deneen, 1221; 
Lorimer, 7441.) 

In 1904 Mr. Yates, then governor of Illinois, was a candidate for 
renomination before the Republican State convention. Mr. Deneen 
was a candidate for the same position before that convention. Mr. 
Lorimer, who had previously been his warm political friend, would 
not support him at this time, for the reason, as he says, that he had 
received definite information that Mr. Deneen had gone over to the 
newspaper people (Lorimer, 7678), thus breaking the political affilia¬ 
tions before that time existing between them. In that convention 
Mr. Lorimer actively supported the candidacy of Mr. Lowden for gov¬ 
ernor. The convention was unexampled both in length and character. 
A deadlock developed early in its history which extended over a period 
of about four weeks, during which time a recess of 10 days was taken. 
Mr. Yates, while unable to secure the nomination for himself, held 
the balance of power, and was able to direct the nomination of either 
of his principal opponents. In his testimony he says : 

My friends * * * had the power to nominate in that convention either Mr. 
Lowden or Gov. Deneen. We decided that we would support Gov. Deneen (227), 
and Charles S. Deneen was nominated in my stead and by my votes (226). 

While Gov. Yates says that no promises were made him before such 
action on his part, he asserts as a fact, which Gov. Deneen denies, that 
after he had told Gov. Deneen of his intention to support him for the 
governorship the latter assured Gov. Yates that he would support him 
for United States Senator in 1906. Whatever that fact may have 
been, Gov. Deneen failed to do so, and there arose upon the part of Gov. 
Yates and his friends a feeling of bitterness against Gov. Deneen which 
has continued ever since and which was specially manifest during the 
session of the legislature in 1909. 

In the years following 1904 the Republican Party in Illinois was 
divided into two factions, Gov. Deneen being most prominent in one 
and Mr. Lorimer being most prominent in the other. Although Mr. 
Yates had for a time felt unkindly politically toward Mr. Lorimer 
because of his failure to give him Ins support for the governorship in 
1904 and because he had supported Senator Cullom for reelection to 
the Senate of the United States in 1906, he entertained no lasting feel¬ 
ing against him, for the reason, as he testified, that Mr. Lorimer 
never deceived him “in word or deed at any turn of the road.” On 
the other hand, the indignation of Gov. Yates toward Gov. Deneen 
because of his failure to support him for the United States Senatorship 
in 1906 knew no bounds, and his dislike for him personally and polit¬ 
ically was extreme. 

In 1908 Mr. Yates was again a candidate for governor against Mr. 
Deneen, and Mr. Lorimer was his strong and active supporter through¬ 
out the primary contest, winch was bitter in character and waged with 
great vigor throughout the State. The contest was complicated by 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


77 


the candidacy of Mr. Hopkins for the United States Senatorship, and 
it is claimed by both Mr. Lorimer and Mr. Yates that Mr. Hopkins 
and his friends promised them that in this contest Mr. Yates would 
have his and their warm support in his fight for the governorship nom¬ 
ination; that relying upon these assurances they did everything in 
their power to secure the indorsement of the people for the candidacv 
of Mr. Hopkins. 

As the result of this primary Mr. Deneen was nominated for 
governor and Mr. Hopkins received a plurality nomination for the 
Senatorship. In the meantime, however, the fact developed that 
Mr. Hopkins had been conducting his campaign without reference to 
the effect it might have upon the political fortunes of either Mr. Yates 
or Mr. Deneen in their contest for the governorship; he states in his 
testimony that he had determined not to mix up in State politics, 
and that in making his canvass he did so with reference to his own 
election as Senator alone and without reference to the candidates 
on the State ticket. As a result of Senator Hopkins’s failure to aid 
Gov. Yates in his campaign, the relations before that time existing 
between him on the one hand and Messrs. Lorimer and Yates on 
the other, became strained; they felt that he had failed to keep faith 
with them, and they lost interest in his election. Gov. Yates’s feelings 
toward Senator Hopkins were undoubtedly bitter; Mr. Lorimer would 
have been glad to join with anybody to defeat his election by the 
legislature, but did not think it could be done. He did not, however, 
conceal his unfriendliness toward Senator Hopkins, with whom he 
avoided an interview which the latter attempted to arrange through 
the telephone, and when Senator Hopkins sought him in Washington 
and inquired of him as to his attitude on the question of his (Hopkins’s) 
candidacy before the legislature, Mr. Lorimer frankly told him that 
there was no use in discussing the matter. 

Gov. Deneen’s attitude of mind toward Mr. Hopkins is indicated by 
his statement to the committee, as follows: 

Senator Hopkins at that time, I think, was against me, opposed my nomination both 
times, and fought it with Federal patronage. (1134.) 

On the other hand, Gov. Deneen, having been an advocate of direct 
primaries, felt compelled to nominally, at least, support Senator 
Hopkins before the legislature as the plurality candidate. 

ORGANIZATION OF LEGISLATURE. 

When the legislature of 1909 convened the political conditions were 
both peculiar and complicated. 

At the November election President Taft had carried the State of 
Illinois by a majority of 179,000, while Gov. Deneen had received only 
about 23,000 majority, and it was known that the Democratic candi¬ 
date for governor, Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson, would contest the elec¬ 
tion before the legislature. The Forty-sixth General Assembly of 
the State of Illinois met in Springfield January 6, 1909; both political 
parties as represented in that body were badly disorganized. 

In view of the probable contest between him and Mr. Stevenson 
which was to come before the legislature, and his desire to carry out 
certain policies, Gov. Deneen was keenly alive to the necessity of hav¬ 
ing the legislative organization in the hands of his friends. Edward 
D. Shurtleff had twice been speaker of the Illinois House of Repre- 


78 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


sentatives, first in 1905 and again in 1907, on both occasions enjoying 
the friendship of Gov. Deneen, and when in 1908 Mr. Shurtleff an¬ 
nounced his candidacy for membership in the house a third time, it 
was plain that he would, if elected, be again a candidate for the speak¬ 
ership. In the meantime, differences had arisen between him and 
Gov. Deneen regarding various matters of policy, and the latter had 
become unfriendly to his candidacy. 

A majority of the Republicans in the senate were Gov. Deneen’s 
political friends and were able to organize that body in a manner sat¬ 
isfactory to him. A majority of the Republican members of the 
house were also undoubtedly Gov. Deneen’s friends; but among them 
were several who aspired to the speakership of that body, and the 
result of a party caucus, if called under such conditions, was feared 
by him and his friends. It was therefore agreed to hold a conference 
of the Republican members of the house who were favorable to Gov. 
Deneen for the purpose of uniting upon some one man for speaker 
before a caucus should be called. This conference was held on the 
evening of the Monday preceding the convening of the legislature on 
Wednesday, January 6, and to it were invited only those known to be 
Deneen adherents. The process of elimination was invoked, and one 
after another of those who had aspired to the speakership dropped 
from consideration until it was agreed to support Mr. King for that 
position. 

Then followed a call for a caucus of all the Republican members of 
the house to be held on the following evening; but learning that the 
Deneen Republicans had taken the action above mentioned, Mr. Shurt¬ 
leff and his friends declined to enter that caucus, and the following day 
he was elected speaker, receiving 85 votes—25 Republican and 60 
Democratic. The Democratic support, which secured his election, 
was accounted for by different factions in different ways. It was 
stated by practically all the Democrats appearing before the commit¬ 
tee that it was because he had been fair and impartial in his rulings; 
that he had established a reputation for fair treatment of the minority 
in previous legislatures, thereby endearing himself to the Democrats, 
and that inasmuch as it was impossible to elect a Democrat to that 
position they much preferred Mr. Shurtleff to any other Republican 
for speaker. Many Democrats also, having in mind the contest 
which it was known Mr. Stevenson proposed to make of Gov. Deneen’s 
election, resented the efforts which it was understood the latter was 
making to control the organization of the house, and before the vot¬ 
ing for speaker began it was understood that the Democrats would, 
almost as a body, vote for Mr. Shurtleff. (Donahue, 3307.) Gov. 
Deneen also attributed this action of the Democrats to the fact that 
the contest over the governorship would come before the legislature 
and they did not want him to control the organization; also that in the 
preceding legislature the Democrats had agreed to an investigation of 
his administration with reference to charitable institutions and that 
Speaker Shurtleff had made this possible by cooperating with them. 

Gov. Deneen admits that there was a bitter feeling against Speaker 
Shurtleff on the part of his friends. That there was an equally strong 
feeling against him, Deneen, on the part of the Democratic member¬ 
ship of the house is unquestioned. 

The prospective gubernatorial contest between Gov. Deneen and 
Mr. Stevenson was undoubtedly a strong factor in the organization 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


79 


of the house. While it was not intended, nor was it supposed it 
would in any way affect the election of Senator Hopkins by the legis¬ 
lature, it did in fact lead to his defeat after a deadlock extending 
over a period of more than four months. The friends of Gov. Deneen 
felt that Senator Hopkins’s friends intended to join the movement to 
deprive him of the office of governor; not with the approval, however, 
of Senator Hopkins. For this reason several of Gov. Deneen’s friends 
refused to vote for Senator Hopkins when the voting began, and his 
election was postponed until the settlement of the governor’s contest. 
This was done with Gov. Deneen’s consent and at his instance. As 
a result of this procrastination, which extended from January 19 
to March 22, an opportunity presented itself for uniting all the various 
influences existing against Senator Hopkins, and as a result there was 
a common effort to secure his defeat. 

Senator Hopkins had failed to carry Cook County in the primary elec¬ 
tion, as well as Kane, in which county he had his residence; he also 
failed in Sangamon and some other counties, and as already stated, 
there existed in the Republican party a considerable degree of un¬ 
friendliness toward him. His own legislative district had been car¬ 
ried against him and was represented in the house by a Democrat, 
George W. Alschuler, a resident of his home town, Aurora, who 
accepted the election for the express purpose of defeating Senator 
Hopkins; and he devoted all his energies during the entire session to 
that end. The feeling against Senator Hopkins was so general and so 
pronounced among the Democrats that Gov. Deneen in his testimony 
says: 

I think a number of Democrats would have voted for me before they would vote 
for Senator Hopkins. 

Representative Shaw, a prominent Democrat, stated that Senator 
Hopkins was extremely unpopular with the Democrats. “He could 
not have been more so.” Representative Donahue confirmed this, and 
gave as a reason that Senator Hopkins alwa}^s assailed them; that in his 
speeches he “said everything mean that he could about the Demo¬ 
crats.” Representative Alschuler testified that if the Democrats 
could voice their sentiment he would not get 100 votes in the Demo¬ 
cratic Party; that he never had a kind word to speak of a Democrat; 
that he had vilified them; that he was vicious toward the Demo¬ 
cratic Party at all times, and that there was ill will toward him in his 
community. Representative Copley, a Republican, the present Rep¬ 
resentative from the Aurora district in the National House, testified 
that Senator Hopkins was disliked by the Democrats; that he had been 
so offensive to them that he did not know a single Democrat who was 
not bitterly opposed to him, and, although a Republican himself, 
Col. Copley was opposed to him. 

The testimony also shows much opposition to him among the 
Republicans. He was not personally popular and, though he had 
carried the primaries by a small plurality, there was a strong impres¬ 
sion that he had not intended to abide the result if it had been against 
him. 

Attention is called to these conditions to indicate the general senti¬ 
ment of the legislature toward Senator Hopkins and to show how the 
long delay resulting from the gubernatorial contest operated to render 
his election impossible. 

S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2-6 


80 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


The evidence does not indicate that Mr. Lorimer had anything to 
do with the organization of the Illinois Legislature. As before stated, 
this body convened on the 6th day of January, 1909, at which time 
Mr. Lorimer was in Washington, and he had not visited Springfield 
at any time between the election in November, 1908, and the election 
of Mr. Shurtleff as speaker. On the 15th day of September previous 
he became ill and remained at his home until after the November 
election; immediately thereafter he went to the Pacific coast to 
recuperate, was again taken ill and obliged to submit to an operation 
while in Oregon. On November 28 or 29 he started east, accompanied 
for the greater part of the journey by his physician. Congress met 
December 7, 1908, and Mr. Lorimer was in Washington shortly after 
if not on the opening day, where he remained until the Christmas 
holidays, when he returned to his home in Chicago. During this 
recess Mr. Lorimer met in Chicago Messrs. Shurtleff and Shanahan, 
members-elect of the Illinois Legislature, and a conference was had 
regarding the speakership. It was stated that Gov. Deneen had sug¬ 
gested Mr. Chiperfield, who was then a member of his military staff, 
in connection with the position, and that Mr. Chiperfield had been 
twice to Chicago to confer with Mr. Shurtleff in regard to his pro¬ 
posed candidacy. Although Mr. Chiperfield had not been one of his 
political friends, Mr. Lorimer expressed the opinion that in the 
interest of party harmony the selection of Mr. Chiperfield for the 
speakership was a proper course to pursue and that he would ask 
his friends to cooperate in securing his election; but as Gov. Deneen 
subsequently declined to support Mr. Chiperfield, nothing resulted 
from the conference. 

That is all that Mr. Lorimer had to do with the organization of the 
Illinois House of Representatives, and with the exception of that 
interview the evidence does not show that he ever conferred with 
any member of the legislature regarding such organization. In his 
testimony Mr. Lorimer states that he did not know that Mr. Shurtleff 
was a candidate until he had been elected to the office of speaker, and 
there is no evidence that he had anyone acting for or representing him 
in any way in the organization of the legislature. 

Mr. Lorimer was again in Washington on January 4 or 5 and w r as 
present at the sessions of the House between that time and the 8th of 
January and did not reach Springfield until January 11 or 12, five or 
six days after Mr. Shurtleff was elected speaker. 

No one connected with the legislature has suggested that Mr. 
ShurtlefFs election as speaker was intended or expected to have any 
connection with Mr. Lorimer’s election as Senator. He was not a can¬ 
didate. But he and his friends expected that Senator Hopkins would 
be chosen by the Republican majority to that office to succeed him¬ 
self, and he would undoubtedly have been so elected had it not been 
for Gov. Deneen’s “postponement” of his election for a period of two 
months or more, as before stated. 

The only definite suggestion to the contrary appears in the fol¬ 
lowing : 

In answer to a question by Mr. Kenyon as to whether Mr. Shurtleff's 
election was the first step in the election of Mr. Lorimer, Gov. Yates 
testified: 

I did not try to elect Speaker Shurtleff for the purpose of electing Mr. Lorimer as 
Senator. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORTMER. 


81 


And he further says: 

I was for Ed. Shurtleff. I wanted to see him speaker, and I did have the desire 
all the time, as I stated before, that it might come Mr. Lorimer’s way; but when you 
asked me if that was the first step, the vital step, in a prearranged plan to which I 
was a party to bring about the election of Mr. Lorimer, that is incorrect. 

Gov. Yates also testified that he did not know of any such arrange¬ 
ment and had nothing to do with it, and that the election of Mr. 
Lorimer was never mentioned in connection with the election of 
Speaker Shurtleff. The only ground upon which any such claim could 
be based so far as Gov. Yates is concerned is the testimony of Edward 
O. Phillips, a reporter for the Chicago Tribune, who testified that 
Gov. Yates had told him at the time of Mr. Shurtleff’s election that 
this meant the election of Mr. Lorimer to the Senate. Mr. Phillips 
was at that time employed on the Record-Herald and was assisting 
in covering the legislature for that paper, and had written an article 
for the Record-Herald which appeared January 7, 1909, based on the 
statement of Gov. Yates, which on the day of Mr. Lorimer’s election 
he showed to Gov. Yates and others in the speaker’s room, and Gov. 
Yates said it was good information or something of that sort. Gov. 
Yates stated in his testimony before the committee that he had no 
recollection of making this statement, but thought he did say it if 
Mr. Phillips said he did; and while this would tend to lend color to 
the theory that the election of Mr. Shurtleff as speaker was a part of 
a prearranged plan, Gov. Yates’s statement that there was no such 
arrangement, and that the election of Mr. Lorimer was never men¬ 
tioned in connection with the election of Speaker Shurtleff, is sup 
ported by all the other testimony in the case. 

Roger C. Sullivan, Democratic national committeeman for Illinois, 
stated to the committee that— 

They happened to elect the speaker by Democratic votes. There was not any ma¬ 
terial objection to it so far as the public is concerned, or anybody else. Then I think 
that some of these Republican leaders took advantage of that situation to go on and 
help to stop the election of Mr. Hopkins as Senator; and then after they had got that 
far and got that stopped to their satisfaction, the selfishness of mankind asserted itself 
and made them commence to look around and wonder if there was not some chance 
for themselves or somebody else, and then they started in and tried to elect a Senator. 
I think those three stages surely came about. (4379.) 

Many prominent members of the legislature testified that the 
election of Speaker Shurtleff was no part of such a plan and was 
never mentioned by anyone. Speaker Shurtleff said: “I never 
heard it mentioned in any way whatever.” (4561.) 

Thomas Tippit, leader of one faction of the Democrats in the 
house, testified: “There was no thought of it.” (4255.) 

Representative De Wolf (Democrat) testified that he heard no 
intimation at the time the speaker was elected that the senatorial 
election was involved. (5399.) 

Mr. Espy (Democrat) testified that the election of speaker had no 
sort of reference or relation to the senatorial election. (4328.) 

Mr. Donahue (Democrat), testified: 

Mr. Healy. Did you have any understanding of any sort with reference to the 
election of Mr. Shurtleff which in any way affected the Democratic membership of that 

b °Mr. Donahue. No. Mr. Shurtleff stood pretty well throughout the State as being 
a very fair speaker. He was very popular with the Democrats, and they thought he 


82 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


was the fairest speaker Illinois had had for many years. That was the general impres¬ 
sion among the Democrats. It was discussed, and it was said that former speakers, be 
they Democrats or Republicans, would not recognize the minority at all in any legisla¬ 
tion or in any way; but Mr. Shurtleff broke over that rule and gave every member a 
fair show to get measures through if he could. He did not recognize any politics in 
so far as general legislation was concerned. That was the feeling among the Democrats 
throughout the State. There was talk of a contest over the governorship, and the 
Democrats felt that if Shurtleff was speaker they would probably get a recount of the 
votes. (3302.) 

It also appears that 17 members of the house who voted for Senator 
Hopkins also voted for the election of Mr. Shurtleff (7408). Senator 
Hopkins testified that personal friends of his and supporters who voted 
for him all the way through also voted for Mr. Shurtleff for speaker 
(314, Hopkins), though the majority of his supporters favored Deneen’s 
candidate (314), and that he regarded the speakership as a con¬ 
troversy between Gov. Deneen and Mr. Shurtleff at the time; he 
thinks there was no general talk to that effect, and his friends did 
not suggest that the senatorship was involved, though he says, “as a 
matter of fact I discovered that it did involve the senatorship to quite 
a large extent, later ” (315). In answer to a direct question by Senator 
Fletcher as to whether from knowledge he then had or since acquired 
he would say the election of speaker had any connection with or refer¬ 
ence to the election of Senator, he testified: 

I could not say, Senator, whether that is so or not. I only can judge of results. I 
khow the result was that it was very detrimental to my candidacy. Whether that 
was in the mind of Shurtleff and the men that supported him at the time he was elected, 
I do not know. (327.) (Hopkins, 372-373.) 

Following the election of Mr. Shurtleff as speaker on the 12th day 
of January, 1909, a meeting of the Republican State central com¬ 
mittee was held in Springfield. Roy O. West, its chairman, was a 
close political and personal friend of Gov. Deneen. The meeting was 
called to devise means to induce the Republican members of the 
house of representatives to support the governor in an effort to have 
the appointment of the house committees taken away from the 
speaker, but the committee refused to thus cooperate with the 
governor, and the feeling of Gov. Deneen toward Speaker Shurtleff 
became extreme. 

MEETINGS BETWEEN GOV. DENEEN AND MR. LORIMER. 

In an attempt to secure party harmony Mr. West then arranged a 
meeting between the governor and Mr. Lorimer for January 13. Gov. 
Deneen testified that he and Mr. Lorimer had not previously met for 
five or six years except on the street, and on this occasion they met 
about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, remained in conference at the 
executive office until about 9 o’clock in the evening, when they went 
to the mansion, there remaining together until about midnight. 
According to the testimony of Gov. Deneen, they discussed waterway 
legislation, an anticipated decision nullifying the primary law, their 
previous relations, political conditions generally, the senatorial 
situation, and the organization of the house. (Deneen, 1099, 1106.) 
Mr. Lorimer testified that they talked about the committee that 
would probably be appointed to investigate Gov. Deneen’s election, 
and the organization of the house only to the extent of discussing 
that committee (7415-7410); that subsequently, at another inter¬ 
view (the latter part of January) (7412-7416), the governor posi- 


ELECTION OF WILLTAM LORIMER. 


83 


lively stated that he should try to defeat Hopkins, and in that 
connection asked Mr. Lorimer to suggest to Speaker ShurtlefT in the 
appointment of a committee to visit charitable institutions of the 
State he should select only Hopkins men, their duties as members 
of such committee would take them away from Springfield for a 
couple of weeks and tide over the period of voting on the senatorship 
(7415); Mr. Lorimer understood that the committee was so consti¬ 
tuted, he having carried the governor’s suggestion to the speaker, 
who called upon the governor the following day to discuss it (7415). 
This was the only time Mr. Lorimer ever discussed the organization 
of house with the governor, and only the membership of this com¬ 
mittee was discussed between them (7416). 

Gov. Deneen complained to Mr. Lorimer of the harsh treatment by 
Senator Hopkins in not giving him support, and particularly of his lack 
of support from Senator Hopkins and his friends at the State commit¬ 
tee meeting, over which he felt much chagrin. (Lorimer, 7400.) 

Gov. Deneen and Mr. Lorimer had a second conference on January 18 
(Lorimer, 7401-7402), following which Mr. Lorimer left Springfield. 
He was not there on the first two days of the balloting for the senator- 
ship, when 15 Republican members of the house, friends of Gov. Deneen, 
failed to vote for Senator Hopkins on the first ballot taken in separate 
houses, and when 13 of the same element failed to vote for him on 
the first joint ballot, thus inaugurating the plan of Gov. Deneen and 
his friends to, as he testified, “postpone the election of Senator” 
until the gubernatorial contest was settled. 

Mr. Lorimer returned to Springfield about January 27, 1909, and 
thereafter had a number of conferences with Gov. Deneen, in which 
the governor said he would not help in reelecting Senator Hopkins, and 
grew firmer in that determination as time progressed. By that time 
the opposition to Senator Hopkins was so strongly crystallized that his 
election had become improbable. It has already appeared in this 
report that Mr. Lorimer had energetically supported Senator Hopkins 
in the primary in 1908 and was indignant when he found that Senator 
Hopkins had not lent his assistance to Gov. Yates in his candidacy for 
the governorship, as it was claimed he had promised to do. He after¬ 
wards told Senator Hopkins frankly that he would not support him 
before the legislature. lie did not, however, formulate any plan to 
defeat Senator Hopkins, and in fact did not believe it possible to do so 
until after his conference with Gov. Deneen about the middle of 
January. 

MEN AND MEASURES DISCUSSED. 


As these interviews between Gov. Deneen and Mr. Lorimer continued 
their relations became more cordial, and, according to Gov. Deneen, 
the old friendly feeling had been restored, and the opposition of both 
to Senator Hopkins’s candidacy grew more firm. 

They frequently conferred together as to the advisability of break¬ 
ing the deadlock by bringing forward some person other than Senator 
Hopkins who could command a majority of the votes of the joint 
assembly. In February after they had discussed the possible candi¬ 
dacy of Gov. Deneen the latter suggested that they cooperate in put¬ 
ting the election ofrSenator over until after the 4th of March, when the 
seat would be vacant and the people insistent that it be filled, thereby 
creating a condition under which Gov. Deneen could accept the place. 


84 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


About March 15 Gov. Deneen suggested that it would be embar¬ 
rassing for him to make arrangements to become a candidate for the 
Senate, and Mr. Lorimer suggested that he have his friend Roy O. 
West come to Springfield the following week and he (Lorimer) would 
discuss the plan with him (7417, Lorimer). This was done and plans 
made between Messrs. Lorimer and West to bring about the election 
of Gov. Deneen, it being agreed that his name would be presented to 
the legislature on March 24. On the evening of March 23, Mr. West 
informed Mr. Lorimer that the governor would not be a candidate. 

When this statement was subsequently confirmed by Gov. Deneen 
personally, they began discussing whom they could support, and Mr. 
Lorimer suggested Speaker Shurtleff; the governor said he thought Mr. 
Lorimer ought to become the candidate, as he had insisted from their 
first interviews. This was considerably discussed between them, the 
governor strongly urging Mr. Lorimer to permit his name to be used 
instead of urging Mr. Shurtleff (Deneen, 1269). When Mr. Lorimer first 
suggested the candidacy of Mr. Shurtleff, the governor said he would 
let him know in about a week, and thereafter told him that he could 
not support Mr. Shurtleff because his newspaper and Chicago friends 
would not agree to it, and he could not afford to break with them on 
that account (Lorimer, 7422). 

Mr. Lorimer then presented for the consideration of the governor 
the names of other men, among them Congressmen Boutell, Lowden, 
McKinley, and Rodenberg, as well as A. C. Bartlett, and the possible 
candidacy of William J. Calhoun, whose name was suggested by Mr. 
Beale, trustee for the Joseph Medill estate and Chicago Tribune. At 
these conferences, althougn Mr. Lorimer expressed the opinion that 
Senator Hopkins could not be elected (Lorimer, 7425-7426), Gov. De¬ 
neen found reasons for refusing to support any of the persons named. 
Gov. Deneen testified that Mr. Lorimer, about March 20, again urged him 
strongly to become a candidate, and lie urged Mr. Lorimer to become 
a candidate, saying that if he could elect Mr. Shurtleff he could elect 
himself; that he was a greater power than the latter. (Deneen, 1269.) 
By that time it seemed to be understood by most people having 
knowledge of the situation that Senator Hopkins could not be elected, 
and representatives of the various men mentioned as possible candi¬ 
dates had appeared in Springfield to sound the sentiment of the general 
assembly. Mr. West had ambitions to be named for the senatorship, 
but Mr. Lorimer refused to support him (7423-7424), and the gov¬ 
ernor told Mr. Lorimer he was embarrassed by West's attitude. These 
general conditions continued for some considerable time; the situation 
was discussed in the newspapers and it seemed that no one among 
those mentioned was developing any strength; several State senators, 
some of whom were friendly to both Mr. Lorimer and Gov. Deneen, 
importuned Gov. Deneen to enter the race. And after the situation 
had been generally discussed for some time in the public press and 
otherwise, Mr. Lorimer again took up with the governor the question 
of his becoming a candidate, strongly urged him to enter the field, and 
assured him that he and his friends would support him. Gov! Deneen 
testified that the “ Senator urged me very strongly to take it," stating 
that it was a position where “I must expect criticism," but that it was 
the only opportunity “I would ever have to go to the Senate, because 
if I did not the party would be organized on other theories and it would 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


85 


be impossible to overcome the difficulties. ” (1113-1114, Deneen.) 

Senator Curtis had presented the matter to Gov. Deneen and discussed 
it with him several times, urging as a reason the harmony which his 
candidacy would bring to the party, and that it would quiet the dis¬ 
turbances which had existed there for years. Mr. Lorimer also 
assured him that he would receive all but 15 of the Republican votes 
in the general assembly and most of the Democrats. 

Gov. Deneen’s reluctance to enter the contest was based in part on 
the fact that he had been responsible for the primary law, and notwith¬ 
standing the feeling he entertained regarding the attitude of Senator 
Hopkins toward some of his wishes he would not allow himself to be 
made the means of breaking down the law itself. 

It appears from the testimony of Hon. Frederick Lundin, former 
member of the Illinois State Senate, and also of Congress, that he had 
frequent conferences with Gov. Deneen regarding the senatorial 
situation; that as late as the first week in May in a conference between 
them the governor thought it would be a good plan and good politics 
to make the deadlock secure and not elect a Senator at that time 
(6634) ; that the object of the conference at that time was to get four 
or five Hopkins supporters to agree with others to vote for some one 
else; that the reason Gov. Deneen wanted this done was that he did 
not really know whether he wanted the senatorship or not; that he 
would like it, but was not just sure that he dared take it; that while 
he wanted it, he supposed that the newspapers—the Record-Herald, 
Tribune, and Daily News—would not let him take it. (6638-6639.) 

Mr. Lundin testified that during these conferences Gov. Deneen 
said that the men with whom he had worked in past years had not 
done right by him; that if Senator Lorimer’s friends and his friends 
should work together, there would be no question but that they 
would be the controlling element in the Republican Party in the 
State; that he thought that Senator Lorimer could afford better than 
any other man to take the senatorship; that it would injure him less, 
and, in fact, he said it might be a good solution of the deadlock to 
have Mr. Lorimer elected by Democratic votes. 

HISTORY OF MR. LORIMER’S CANDIDACY. 

There seemed to be no doubt in the mind of Gov. Deneen that Mi*. 
Lorimer was strong enough in the Illinois Legislature to be elected 
Senator at any time, but Mr. Lorimer declined to become a candidate 
because the importance of establishing the great waterway from 
the Lakes to the Gulf was more to him than a seat in the United 
States Senate, and he felt he could render greater service to that 
great undertaking in the House than in the Senate. Mr. Shurtleff 
testified that it was for this reason that Mr. Lorimer refused until late 
in the session to become a candidate. 

About this time in the session Col. John R. Thompson, Col. 
Chauncey Dewey, and Col. Copley, all members of the governor’s 
staff and his warm personal and political friends, men who were 
influential leaders in the Republican Party, became active in their 
efforts to induce Mr. Lorimer to become a candidate for the Senate. 
As the deadlock continued and it became apparent that Mr. Lorimer 


86 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


was probably the only person upon whom the different factions could 
unite, he finally determined to become a candidate. 

In addition to those last mentioned he had the support of Gov. Yates 
and Speaker Shurtleff, who had been urging him very strongly to accep t 
Democratic votes and accept the election (4581). Many other promi¬ 
nent Republicans were anxious to support him, and he also devel¬ 
oped strength among the Democratic members, but it was not until 
two or three weeks before the election, which occurred May 26, 1909, 
that Mr. Lorimer’s candidacy began to be seriously considered, and he 
thinks it was about 10th or 12th of May when he determined to ascer¬ 
tain whether he could be elected. (Lorimer, 7584.) This substantially 
accords with the testimony of Gov. Deneen (1136-1137); Mr. Stringer, 
Democratic nominee for Senator (2276); Lee O’Neil Browne, Demo¬ 
cratic minority leader of the house (4886); and Senator Hopkins (307), 
and his candidacy was first mentioned in the Chicago Tribune May 
11, 1909. From that time forward Mr. Lorimer was willing to become 
a candidate, and be voted for in the legislature, provided he could be 
assured that he would be elected; otherwise he would not permit his 
name to be presented; prominent men and leaders in both parties 
then became active and worked together for his election. 

When Mr. Lorimer went to his home in Chicago about a week prior 
to May 26 he was satisfied that he could be elected, and believed 
until Friday of that week that Gov. Deneen was giving him his loyal 
support. Meantime, while in Chicago, he heard it rumored that the 
governor was opposing him, and on Sunday night, upon reaching 
Springfield, this was confirmed, and conferring with some of his 
friends, among them Cols. Thompson and Dewey, Gov. Deneen’s 
friends, he learned that the governor was trying to have the election 
put over (7432-7437). From that time he devoted himself to ascer¬ 
taining whether he could be elected despite the governor’s opposition, 
and on the morning of the 26th of May made public the fact of his 
candidacy and willingness to have his name presented to the joint 
assembly. And on that day, and on the ninety-fifth ballot, he was 
declared elected as a Senator of the United States from the State of 
Illinois. 

BIPARTISAN COMBINATIONS. 

In relation to combination and bipartisan operations, which gener¬ 
ally prevail in Illinois elections, the committee is impressed that the 
provision of the constitution of Illinois whereby minority represen¬ 
tation is secured, which was prompted by a sense of justice and 
fairness and intended to promote the general good, in practical execu¬ 
tion has the effect, more or less marked, of producing the very 
bipartisan combination and cooperation so much complained of. It 
is unjust to attribute any alleged unsatisfactory working out of a 
constitutional principle to any one man. The constitution provides: 

The house of representatives shall consist of three times the number of members 
of the senate, and the term of office shall be two years. Three representatives shall 
be elected in each senatorial district at the general election in the year of our Lord 
1872, and every two years thereafter. In all elections of representatives aforesaid each 
qualified voter may cast as many votes for one candidate as there are representatives 
to be elected or may distribute the same or equal parts thereof among the candidates 
as he shall see fit, and the candidates highest in votes shall be declared elected. (R., 
(4536-4537.) 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


87 


Representative Copley testified: " 

We have a different constitution in this State. We have a minority representation, 
and you can get almost any sort of a fellow in the legislature from certain districts. 
(R., 4532.) 

He elaborates this further by saying: 

Of course, the constitutional provision allows a certain type of man to get into the 
legislature in larger numbers than would be the case if we did not have that minority 
provision. (R., 4534.) 

It seems a voter can cumulate—he can cast one and a half votes 
for each of two candidates, one for each of three, or three votes for 
one candidate (R., 4534), and in consequence of this constitutional 
provision, in effect since 1870, it appears, as Mr. Copley says: 

And so in that way to elect three Republicans they must have more than two-thirds 
and divide equally. If they do not divide equally, one man can come in and get 20 
per cent of the vote. In practice, usually 20 per cent of the vote, or a little more than 
20 per cent, will elect, because there are Socialists and Labor candidates and Prohibi¬ 
tion candidates. Consequently it is a pretty hard thing to keep them out of the 
legislature from these congested districts in Chicago. (4534.) 

To attack Mr. Lorimer’s election because of the bipartisan character 
of his support would be to attack the election of other members of this 
body, the regularity of which has never been brought in question. 

ELECTION LOGICAL RESULT OF CONDITIONS. 

Taken all together, the testimony indicates that Mr. Lorimer’s elec¬ 
tion was the result of political conditions and not attributable to the 
corrupt use of money. The Democratic support which he received 
was the outcome of many different circumstances and conditions. 
During the two years prior to the election he had spoken in every 
part of the State, advocating the adoption of a constitutional amend¬ 
ment which enabled the people to appropriate $20,000,000 toward 
the construction of a deep waterway from Chicago to the Gulf of 
Mexico, for the establishment of which he had labored during his 
entire service in Congress. He had come into contact with the lead¬ 
ing men of all parties and had been instrumental in creating a public 
sentiment sufficiently strong to accomplish that great result. In this 
work he had cooperated with a considerable number of the prominent 
Democrats of the State, and in some cases had established intimate 
personal relations with them. So strong was this element among the 
forces resulting in his election that it was mentioned in an article 
appearing in the Chicago Tribune on the morning following liis elec¬ 
tion, as follows: 

The explanation generally made is that Lorimer is the exponent of the Lakes-to - 
the-Gulf waterway proposition, and that is the reason he received such a large number 
of Democratic votes. 

All the evidence in the case tends to show a remarkable ability on 
the part of Mr. Lorimer to make friends among the membership of 
both political parties and attach them to liis interests. 

Homer Shaw, member of the house, a Democrat, a banker and a 
man of high character, testifies that there was an organization of 
Democrats in the legislature who would not vote for Lorimer, of which 
he was the chairman; that they endeavored to hold Democrats in 
sufficient numbers to make impossible the election of Mr. Lorimer 
by Democratic votes; but that after two or three days of effort they 


88 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


found it impossible to do so. This organization was in existence for 
about a week before the election and was active in its efforts to in¬ 
crease its membership. Mr. Shaw testified that he talked with a 
great many Democrats who would not join the association, who gave 
various reasons for refusing to do so; he discovered that there were 
a large number of Chicago Democrats extremely friendly to Mr. 
Lorimer, so friendty that the members of the organization made no 
headway in talking party politics to them* that such Democrats 
seemed to have a personal friendship for Mr. Lorimer, which was 
controlling. Mr. Shaw further testifies that he knew from the start 
that Mr. Lorimer was the most formidable Republican who could be 
named, and that if any Republican could be elected by Democratic 
votes in the State of Illinois, it was William Lorimer. 

The evidence clearly establishes a situation relative to the election 
under consideration which had no dependence whatever on corrup¬ 
tion of any kind. What we mean is expressed in the testimony of a 
number of responsible witnesses heretofore mentioned and indicated 
further by Mr. Isley and Mr. Tippitt. There was no Republican in 
the State who stood as high with the Democrats as Mr. Lorimer, 
according to State Senator A. E. Isley, an attorney and a Democrat, 
of Newton, Ill. (5527.) 

Mr. Thomas Tippitt, for six terms a member of the Illinois General 
Assembly, and leader of one of the Democratic factions in the forty- 
sixth, composed of 26 Democrats, testified— 

My understanding is that, three-fourths, probably, of the Democratic State central 
committee favored the election of Mr. Lorimer to the United States Senate. I think 
that is true. (4265.) 

For weeks during the deadlock he was making earnest efforts to 
secure harmony in the Republican Party; he journeyed to Springfield 
almost every week because of his intense interest in the deep water¬ 
way, his purpose being to prevent the use and expenditure of the 
$20,000,000 appropriated by the State until an appropriation from the 
National Government could be secured for the same purpose, in order 
that the work might be successfully accomplished without loss or 
waste. 

The policy advocated by Gov. Deneen was the expenditure of the 
$20,000,000, under conditions not necessary to be here discussed, 
without waiting for action on the part of the Government of the 
United States. The conflict in regard to these two propositions 
challenged the attention of the entire State, and the importance of its 
determination was such and Mr. Lorimer’s interest in it was such that 
he traveled back and forth between Washington and Springfield for 
the sole purpose of aiding in the defeat of the one and the adoption of 
the other plan. During these visits to Springfield, as already appears 
in this report, conference after conference was held between him and 
Gov. Deneen after a political estrangement of six years, in an attempt 
to harmonize party politics. Nothing appears more clearly than the 
fact that one of the chief desires of Mr. Lorimer was that Gov. Deneen 
should be elected United States Senator, and it was not until the latter 
positively declined, for reasons clearly appearing in this record, to 
become a candidate, and until the deadlock had extended over a 
period of practically four months, and not until three members of 
Gov. Deneen’s military staff, personal and political friends of his, 
had urged and importuned him to permit his name to be used in 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


89 


connection with the Senatorship, and Gov. Deneen likewise personally 
had urged him, that Mr. Lorimer seriously considered the proposition. 

Mr. Lorimer told many of his intimate friends that he did not want 
to go to the Senate, that he did not want to leave the House, and he 
cared so little about going to the Senate that he refused to allow 
his name to be used until after Gov. Deneen finally refused to be a 
candidate_ and there seemed to be no hope of uniting the different 
elements in the legislature on anyone else; he would not even then 
consent to have his name used if there was to be an extended 
controversy, and to ascertain whether such would be the case or 
whether he could be elected without such a controversy, his friends in 
both parties made the canvass which resulted in his election. With 
positive assurances that he could be elected that day, Mr. Lorimer 
testified before this committee that on the morning of his election, if 
Gov. Deneen would have taken the Senatorship, he would have sup¬ 
ported him and not permitted his own name to go before the legis¬ 
lature, and this, after all Gov. Deneen had promised and failed to do, 
because he believed it would have been in the interest of harmony in 
the Republican Party in Illinois. (Lorimer, 7594-7595, 7738.) 

The testimony taken together indicates that the election of Mr. 
Lorimer was the natural result of existing conditions and was willingly 
joined in by a large element in both parties. 

The committee has presented in detail the various instances in 
which it has been claimed that money was corruptly paid to individ¬ 
uals to influence the election of Mr. Lorimer to the United States 
Senate, with the circumstances surrounding each, and in such a man¬ 
ner as to advise the Senate concerning all its salient features. 

The committee patiently listened to a large number of witnesses, 
with equal patience have studied the testimony, and have carefully 
and, they think, judicially considered the same; it finds no evidence 
that in the election of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States 
from the State of Illinois corrupt methods or practices were employed, 
and it is a fact that ought not to be overlooked or go unnoticed, that 
nowhere in the entire mass of testimony is there any evidence showing 
that Mr. Lorimer, by word or by act, ever said or did anything in 
connection with his election by the Legislature of Illinois which can 
be justly criticized. 

PERSONAL CHARACTER. 

One thing stands out most conspicuously, this whole record con¬ 
sidered, and that is that throughout the long deadlock and all the 
pressure, temptations, opportunities, strain, and excitement incident 
to the election of a Senator, notwithstanding the persistent effort 
made to fasten something of the kind on Mr. Lorimer, not one word 
was said or one thing done which in any wise reflected on him. 

Not an indiscreet remark, not a suspicious suggestion, not an 
improper action or an impropriety on his part, in Springfield or else¬ 
where, during that contest has been testified to by a single witness. 
The fact is, the personal integrity, the habits, and life of Mr. Lorimer 
appear wholly exemplary and his personal character above re¬ 
proach. His most relentless political enemies concede that. The 
Tribune, the morning after his election, editorially spoke of his 
“many merits” and “ability” (p. 1880). 


90 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Mr. Kohlsaat said (p. 429): 

From all I know, as I said before, his home life, his family life, is ideal. He has 
a beautiful family of children, which he has raised splendidly. 

Mr. Lawrence B. Stringer, the Democratic candidate for governor 
in 1904 and the Democratic primary nominee for United States Sena¬ 
tor in 1908, testified that he had often heard it said “ that when Sena¬ 
tor Lorimer made a promise you could rely upon it,” and that he had 
never heard Mr. Lorimer’s honesty and integrity as a man questioned, 
but, on the contrary, had “heard it spoken of very highly,” and that 
is the general opinion among people who know him and has been for a 
great many years. (2327.) Other men of prominence in Illinois were 
charged with political treachery and bad faith. Mr. Lorimer is sin¬ 
gularly free from such criticism. 

Mr. Lorimer was first elected to Congress in 1894 from a normally 
Democratic district, and reelected six times. In eight campaigns he 
was defeated only once. Since he resigned from the House the dis¬ 
trict has returned to its Democratic allegiance. 

In view of the suggestion as to the contribution of a fund to secure 
his election to the Senate, it is significant of his methods that in 
1908 when a check was sent to him by Senator Hopkins, through Mr. 
Fred M. Blount, to be used in defraying his Congressional campaign 
expenses, Senator Lorimer returned it with the following letter: 


Chicago, November 2, 1908. 

Hon. Fred M. Blount, 

630-206 La Salle Street , Chicago , III. 

My Dear Friend: I received your communication, with check inclosed for $500. 
I wish to express my thanks to both you and Senator Hopkins for your great kindness. 

I have paid the total expense of my campaigns, both primary and election, without 
accepting a contribution from any person, although a great many have been tendered. 
I therefore feel that I can not accept yours. 

Assuring you that I appreciate the spirit in which it was sent, I am, 

Yours, very truly. 


(Record 7393.) 

The record shows that this letter was signed and forwarded by Mr. 
Lorimer. 


CONCLUSION. 


The record in this case is so long that we have felt it our duty to the 
Senate to present at unusual length our conclusions upon it, and this 
is the reason for the length of the report and the delay in presenting it. 

We have sought to do justice by the people, by the Senate, and by 
Mr. Lorimer. The people are entitled to have the election of their 
representatives honestly conducted; the Senate is entitled to have its 
honor and integrity maintained by the election of its Members without 
corruption; and Mr. Lorimer is entitled to have the right to his seat 
determined in accordance with the law and the evidence. The 
Senate has once solemnly and deliberately passed upon the charges 
made against him. Its judgment, after a full investigation and 
extensive argument, was in his favor, and should stand unless new and 
convincing evidence is produced establishing corruption in his elec¬ 
tion. This rule is more liberal toward the Senate and the people than 
toward Mr. Lorimer, because if the judgment had been against him he 
would have been bound by r it, and no amount of proof showing the 
injustice of the decision against him would secure its reversal and his 
reinstatement as a member of this body. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


91 


Absolutely no new and substantial evidence has been produced or 
discovered on this reinvestigation showing that he was elected by 
corruption, and we believe that all the rules of law, judicial procedure, 
and justice require that the former judgment of the Senate should be 
held to be conclusive and final. 

If the Senate should hold, however, that its former judgment 
can be reconsidered and vacated, we submit for its consideration 
our conclusions on the charges made and the testimony adduced. 

It is charged that Senator Lorimer was elected corruptly. This is 
the issue. Is this charge true or is it false ? If true he should be 
denied a seat in this body; if not true we should so declare. The issue 
is to be determined by evidence and not by prejudice or popular opin¬ 
ion based on biased, imperfect, and distorted reports and suggestions. 
We have heard the evidence under oath; we have seen the witnesses 
as they testified; they have been fully cross-examined; their evidence 
has been caTefully weighed; every suggestion of possible proof has 
been followed; and nothing has been left undone to ascertain the truth 
of the charges against Mr. Lorimer. 

NO PERSONAL GUILT. 

There is absolutely no evidence in all the testimony submitted 
intimating, suggesting, or charging that William Lorimer was person¬ 
ally guilty of any corrupt practices in securing his election, or that he 
had any knowledge of any such corrupt practices, or that he author¬ 
ized anyone to employ corrupt practices in his election. 

NO CORRUPTION IN HIS ELECTION. 

We are convinced that no vote was secured for him by bribery; 
that whatever money White, Beckemeyer, Link, Holstlaw, or any 
other person received was not paid to him or them by anyone on 
Mr. Lorimer’s behalf or in consideration of or to secure such vote or 
votes for him; that neither Edward Hines nor anyone else raised or 
contributed to a fund to be used to secure his election; that his elec¬ 
tion was the logical result of existing political conditions in the State 
of Illinois, and was free from any corrupt practice, and therefore we 
must find, and we do find, that William Lorimer’s election was not 
brought about or influenced by corrupt methods and practices. 




62i> Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

( Rept. 769, 

2d Session . f 


( Part 2. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


May 20, 1912. —Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Lea (for himself, Mr. Kenyon, and Mr. Kern), from the Commit¬ 
tee of the Senate appointed to investigate whether in the election 
of William Lorimer as a Senator of the United States from the 
State of Illinois, there were used and employed corrupt methods 
and practices, submitted the following 

VIEWS OF A MINORITY. 

The undersigned, members of the committee appointed by Senate 
resolution adopted on June 7, 1911, to investigate whether or not 
corrupt practices and methods were employed in the election of Wil¬ 
liam Lorimer to the United States Senate by the Legislature of Illinois, 
submit the following views: 

The committee commenced the taking of testimony on June 20, 
1911, at Washington, and continued its session there until August 9, 
1911. The committee resumed its hearings in Chicago on October 
10, 1911, continuing the same until November 22, 1911. It then 
adjourned to meet in Washington on December 5, 1911, at which time 
it resumed its sessions, and, with the exception of the Christmas holi¬ 
days, sat continuously until February 9, 1912, when the hearing was 
concluded. 

At the conclusion of its hearings on February 9, 1912, the com¬ 
mittee made an order allowing counsel for Senator Lorimer to file a 
brief by March 1, 1912, on the plea of res adjudicata, which plea was 
formally entered by counsel for Senator Lorimer on the last day of 
the hearing. Counsel for Senator Lorimer was also given until 
March 15, 1912, to file a brief upon the facts of the case. Both of 
these briefs have been filed in compliance with this order and are 
ready to be transmitted to the Senate, together with the transcript 
of the evidence taken and abstracts of the testimony prepared by 
the attorneys for the committee. 

On March 27, 1912, the committee met for the purpose of voting 
upon a report, and the following action was taken: 

After disposing of some matters of regular business, Senator Jones 
offered the following resolution: 

That nothing has developed in or by this investigation that justifies a reversal of 
the solemn and deliberate judgment of the United States Senate rendered during the 
last session of the Sixty-first Congress holding valid the election of William Lorimer 
as a Senator of the United States. 


93 










94 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


Senator Kern offered the following resolution as a substitute: 

That in the opinion of the committee there were used and employed in the election 
of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States corrupt methods and practices. 

Senator Lea offered an amendment to be added to Senator Jones’s 
resolution: 

but that said investigation by this committee shows that corrupt methods and prac¬ 
tices were employed in the election of William Lorimer. 

Senator Lea’s amendment was lost by a vote of 5 to 3. Nays, 
Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, Fletcher; yeas, Sen¬ 
ators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Lea made the following point of order: 

That the resolution offered by Senator Jones is not responsive to the resolution of 
the Senate appointing and instructing this committee in that the Senate only 
instructed this committee to investigate and report whether there were corrupt meth¬ 
ods and practices used in the election of Senator Lorimer. 

The chairman overruled this point of order. Senator Lea appealed 
from the decision of the chair, and Senator Jones moved to lay on the 
table the appeal of Senator Lea. This motion was carried by a vote 
of 4 to 3, as follows: Yeas, Senators Gamble, Jones, Johnston, 
Fletcher; nays, Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Kern’s substitute resolution was then lost by a vote of 5 to 
3: Nays, Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, Fletcher; 
yeas, Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Jones’s resolution was adopted bv a vote of 5 yeas, 3 nays. 
Yeas: Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, Fletcher; nays, 
Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea: 

Senator Jones then offered the following resolution: 

There is no proof of the existence of any “jack pot” or any other fund during the 
Forty-sixth General Assembly of the State of Illinois in connection with the election 
of Senator Lorimer other than the statements of White, Beckemeyer, Link, and 
Holstlaw that they were paid money after the election, and none of them except White 
claimed to have received such money for voting for Senator Lorimer. 

Senator Kern moved to amend as follows: 

Inserting after the word “Holstlaw, ” in line 5, the words “and cer ain circumstances 
corroborating said statements. ” 

This amendment was lost by a vote of 5 to 3, as follows: Nays, 
Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, and Fletcher; yeas, 
Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Fletcher offered the following amendment to Senator 
Jones’s resolution, which was agreed to by Senator Jones: 

After the word “claimed” insert the words “nor does it appear otherwise.” 

And this resolution as amended was adopted by a vote of 5 to 3, 
as follows: Yeas, Senators Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, 
and Fletcher; nays, Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Kern offered the following resolution: 

That in the opinion of this committee there was a fund distributed in the city of 
St. Louis to certain members of the Illinois Legislature who had voted for William 
Lorimer and also that Senator Broderick paid to Senator Holstlaw in the city of Chi¬ 
cago money on two occasions. 

Senator Johnston offered to amend as follows: 

If any fund was distributed in Chicago or any other city, it was not to vote for Senator 
Lorimer. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


95 


After discussion Senator Lea offered the following resolution in 
lieu, which was accepted by Senator Kern: 

That in the opinion of this committee there was a fund distributed in the city of 
St. Louis on June 21, 1909, by Lee O’Neill Brown and on July 15, 1909, by Robert E. 
Wilson to certain members of the Illinois Legislature. 

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 3 to 0, as follows: Yeas, 
Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea; not voting, Senators Dillingham, 
Gamble, Jones, Johnston, and Fletcher. 

Senator Jones offered the following resolution: 

It is not proved that Edward Hines raised $100,000 or any other sum, or that he 
expended that or any other sum, or that he contributed any sum whatever to aid in or 
secure the election of William Lorimer to the United States Senate. The evidence is 
that he did not raise, contribute to, or expend said sum, or any sum of money whatso¬ 
ever, to aid or assist improperly in the election of Senator Lorimer. 

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 to 0: Yeas, Senators 
Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, Fletcher; not voting, Senators 
Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Gamble offered the following resolution: 

That in the opinion of this committee, this investigation does not show that there 
were used and employed in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United 
States from the State of Illinois corrupt practices and methods. 

This resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 to 3: Yeas, Senators 
Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, and Fletcher; nays, Senators 
Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Lea offered the following resolution: 

Be it resolved , That in the opinion of the committee this investigation has resulted in 
additional proof to that developed by the last investigation, that corrupt methods 
and practices were employed in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the 
United States which warrants a reversal of the former action of the Senate in declaring 
that the election of William Lorimer was valid, and that in the election of William 
Lorimer to the Senate of the United States corrupt methods and practices were 
employed, and that said election was invalid. 

This resolution failed to pass by a vote of 5 to 3: Nays, Senators 
Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, and Fletcher ; yeas, Senators 
Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

Senator Johnston offered the following resolution: 

That the testimony failed to show that Senator Lorimer himself used any corrupt 
practices or means, or had any knowledge if such were used. 


This resolution was adopted by a vote of 5 to 0: Yeas, Senators 
Dillingham, Gamble, Jones, Johnston, and Fletcher; not voting, 
Senators Kenyon, Kern, and Lea. 

The committee in making this investigation proceeded on the 
theory that its functions were similar to those of a grand jury and 
that it was vested with inquisitorial power. A great amount of 
evidence therefore was taken that is apparently not material and 
in the nature of hearsay. This was done in order that the committee 
might pursue to the end every possible channel of information and 
make the investigation as thorough as it was possible to make it. 
The work of the committee is evidenced bv the fact that it has taken 
8,588 pages of printed testimony in the examination of witnesses, 
and has been in session 18 weeks. 

Without discussing in detail the evidence presented by the former 
committee investigating this same question, we believe that the evi¬ 
dence presented by this committee is broader and more far reaching 


S. Rept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 


96 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


and establishes conclusively that at least 10 of the votes cast for 
William Lorimer on the 26th day of May, 1909, at the joint session 
of both Houses of the General Assembly of Illinois, were corruptly 
east, and the election of William Lorimer being obtained by corrupt 
methods and practices was therefore invalid. 

An effort was made, as is shown by the report of the action of the 
committee on March 27, 1912, to rest the action of the committee in 
this case upon the plea of res adjudicata. We do not believe that 
such a plea is applicable or tenable in this case. 

As we understand the procedure, the resolution relative to the 
second investigation of the election of Senator Lorimer was referred 
to the Committee on Privileges and Elections to report whether a 
new investigation was warranted, and that the committee in reporting 
the resolution ordering another investigation in fact reported that 
there was sufficient grounds for another investigation, and the Senate, 
in adopting this report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections 
and the resolution presented creating this committee, on June 7, 1911, 
ordered a new trial, and in ordering a new trial acted upon the ques¬ 
tion of res adjudicata—the plea of res adjudicata being such as can be 
made on the motion of the court or the tribunal acting as a court 
at any time—and that the committee appointed under the resolution 
adopted on June 7, 1912, should not, under the authority of its 
appointment, make any report upon the law involving the right of the 
Senate to reopen the case, but that said committee had only authority 
to> make a report responsive to the resolution appointing and instruct¬ 
ing the committee. 

In election cases before the Senate a mistake is frequently made in 
drawing a comparison between such a trial and a criminal trial in 
court. Analogies are frequently misleading, and an analogy between 
the trial of an election case by the Senate and a criminal case is most 
misleading. The comparison, if drawn, should be between the trial 
of a Senate election case and a civil case before a court. 

Subsection 1 of section 5 of Article I of the Constitution of the 
United States provides: 

Each House shall be the judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its own 
Members! 

So that no precedents or decisions of courts or other legislative 
bodies can have any but argumentative weight in the determination 
of an election case in either House of Congress. 

The Senate is not bound by any precedents, and the only ones 
that are of any value in the determination of such a question are 
those which have been made by the Senate in determining similar 
oases heretofore. 

It is submitted that there is no precedent of the Senate of the 
United States holding that a contested election case may not be 
reopened, and at least there are dicta to the contrary. The leading 
ease is that of Senators Fitch, Bright, Lane, and McCarthy, of 
Indiana, of the Thirty-fourth and Thirty-fifth Congresses. (Taft 
Election cases, p. 244.) In that case, on June 12, 1858, a resolu¬ 
tion that Fitch and Bright were entitled to their seats as Senators 
from Indiana was adopted. 

Subsequently, in December, 1858, two other Senators were elected 
by the Legislature of Indiana, and a memorial was adopted by the 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


97 


senators and representatives in the Legislature of the State of Indi¬ 
ana, representing that it was the wish and desire of the State that 
Lane and McCarthy be admitted to the seats in the Senate of the 
United States that were held by Fitch and Bright. 

This memorial, like the resolution ordering a second investigation 
in the Lorimer case, was referred to the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, and that committee, in an elaborate report, reviewed in 
detail the history of the case and the resolution which had been 
adopted in 1858 and asked to be discharged from the further consid¬ 
eration of the memorial of the Legislature of Indiana. 

In that case it was not insisted that there was any new evidence 
or additional grounds which would warrant a reversal by the Senate 
of its former action, but the memorial amounted to an insistence that 
the Legislature of Indiana had the power to revise the decision of the 
Senate or, to state the same idea in terms of modern thought, that 
the State of Indiana had the power to recall its Senators. 

Such seems to have been the idea of the Committee on Privileges 
and Elections that investigated the case, for it said: 

It may be conceded that the election (referring to the election of Lane and Mc¬ 
Carthy) would have been valid and the claimants entitled to their seats had the Leg¬ 
islature of Indiana possessed the authority to revise the decision of the Senate of the 
United States; that Messrs. Fitch and Bright had been duly elected Senators from 
Indiana, the former until the 4th of March, 1861, and the latter until the 4th of March, 
1863. 

In the opinion of the committee, however, no such authority existed in the Legisla¬ 
ture of Indiana. 

While the language of the report and of the resolution may go 
further, such is mere dicta; as nothing was decided by the adoption 
of the resolution offered by the Committee on Privileges and Elec¬ 
tions in accordance with its report, than that there being no vacan¬ 
cies in the Senate from the State of Indiana, the election of Lane and 
McCarthy was invalid. 

If the Senate decided in this case what is insisted in the brief for 
Senator Lorimer that it did decide, then the decisioiyhas been over¬ 
ruled by subsequent cases in the Senate. 

Another case in which it is insisted that the doctrine of res adjudi- 
cata was established is the case of Francis W. Sykes and George E. 
Spencer, decided by the Senate in the Forty-third and Forty-fourth 
Congresses. (Taft’s Election cases, 556.) 

In point of fact, the Senate decided nothing relative to the case 
being reopened, the facts being that on May 28, 1874, the Senate 
adopted a resolution seating George E. Spencer and discharging the 
committee from further consideration of the memorial of Francis W. 
Sykes. On January 24, 1876, the legislature of Alabama presented 
to the Senate a memorial of the State, praying that the seat in the 
United States Senate of George E. Spencer might be declared vacant. 
This memorial was referred to the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, which reported that the case should not be reopened, and 
no action on this report was taken by the Senate. 

In the case of David T. Corbin v. M. C. Butler (Taft’s Senate Elec¬ 
tion cases, 582), the facts are that in February and March, 1877, the 
separate credentials of Mr. Corbin and Mr. Butler were presented to 
the Senate and both referred to the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections. 


98 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


On November 26, 1877, the Senate, by a resolution, discharged 
the Committee on Privileges and Elections from consideration of the 
credentials of M. C. Butler, of South Carolina, and on November 30 
Mr. Butler was •sworn as a Senator from the State of South Carolina, 
in accordance with the motion which had been determined in the 
affirmative; yeas, 29; nays, 28. 

There was a final action by the Senate that M. C. Butler was entitled 
to his seat. Notwithstanding, on February 4, 1879, Senator Cameron, 
of Wisconsin, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, sub¬ 
mitted a report, accompanied by a resolution, that David T. Corbin 
had been duly elected a Senator for a term of six years. 

To the committee’s hearing of Mr. Corbin’s petition, Senator Butler 
objected on the ground that the decision of the Senate on November 
30, 1877, authorizing him (Butler) to be sworn, was res adjudicata. 
The majority of the committee overruled the plea. A minority of 
the committee, consisting of Senators Mellen and Salisbury, took the 
view that the former action of the Senate constituted res adjudicata. 

The resolution reported by the committee, declaring David T. 
Corbin duly elected, was determined in the negative—yeas, 25; nays, 
36. But the principle was established that a contested-election case, 
though finally decided in the Senate, could be reopened and recon¬ 
sidered. 

Again, in the case of Hon. Henry A. du Pont, of Delaware (Buck’s 
Senate Election Cases, pp. 818-874), the question of the right of 
Mr. du Pont to his seat in the United States Senate was referred to 
the Committee on Privileges and Elections, which subsequently 
reported in favor of Mr. du Pont and accompanied the report by a 
resolution that he was entitled to his seat. 

The resolution was amended so that it read that Henry A. du 
Pont was not entitled to a seat in the Senate and, as amended, was 
agreed to. 

Subsequently thereto, at another session of the Fifty-fourth Con¬ 
gress, a memorial was presented from Mr. du Pont, asking that the 
question of the validity of his election be again considered and acted 
upon. This memorial was likewise referred to the Committee on 
Privileges and Elections, which reported against a reopening of 
the case. 

In discussing this report, Senator Hoar said: 

There has been an application on the part of Mr. du Pont—whom I respect person¬ 
ally, whom I eagerly desire should have a seat in this body, and who, I think, ought to 
have had one on the merits of his case—to reopen that case. No newly discovered 
evidence is suggested; no fraud or mistake is suggested. The reopening of the case 
would be merely a reconsideration of a question of constitutional law which this great 
constitutional court has decided once. That is all he asks, and that is all he would 
obtain if his prayer for a reopening of the case were granted. 

Here we find inference from the statements of one of the ablest and 
most learned Senators who ever sat in this body—that if there had 
been newly discovered evidence or fraud or mistake , the Senate would 
have a right to reopen the case. 

In the case of Spofford y. Kellogg, 557 to 589, Senate Contested 
Election Cases, the Committee on Privileges and Elections reported 
in favor of reopening the case formerly decided on the ground of newly 
discovered evidence, but this report was not acted upon by the 
Senate. 

Summarizing these cases we find not a single one that has held 
that the Senate could not reopen a contested-election case on the 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


09 


ground of newly discovered evidence; but, on the contrary, we find 
statements in support of a report against reopening a case, from 
which the inference can be fairly and logically drawn that if there 
had been newly discovered evidence the case should have been 
reopened, and an unacted upon report by the Committee on Privi¬ 
leges and Elections in favor of reopening on the ground of newly dis¬ 
covered evidence a contested-election case that had been finally 
decided. 

In this case the usual procedure was followed; the memorial from 
the senate of the State of Illinois and a resolution providing for a 
reopening of the case were referred to the Committe on Privileges and 
Elections, and in this case the Committee on Privileges and Elections, 
as it did in the case of Spofford and Kellogg, voted in favor of reopen- 
ing the case; and in accordance with the report of the committee the 
Senate adopted the resolution taking this sound view, and the case 
was thereupon reopened for a full and complete reinvestigation of the 
facts. When the Senate had thus voted the time for the plea of res 
adjudicata had finally passed. 

Had the majority members of the investigating committee—all of 
them being distinguished lawyers—believed that the plea of res adjudi¬ 
cata would prevent a reconsideration of this case upon its merits; 
had they believed that neither this committee nor the Senate could 
consider the results of their labors, obtained at such enormous public 
cost, no matter what new or important might have been developed 
thereby, it is inconceivable that they would have sanctioned the 
expenditure of money that has been involved in the reinvestigation 
of this case and proceeded without right or jurisdiction. 

In considering the evidence presented in this case, it must be borne 
in mind that the crime of bribery is distinct from nearly every other 
crime, in that both parties to it have the same incentive and desire, 
springing from the instinct of self-preservation, to conceal the crime. 
In nearly every other crime the person wronged or injured is influenced 
by motives of revenge or desire for reparation or satisfaction to assist 
the State in securing the facts and punishing the offender. But in 
bribery both the bribe giver and the bribe taker are equally guilty 
and equally desirous of concealing the truth and cheating justice. In 
nearly every case of bribery proof thereof must rest solely upon cir¬ 
cumstantial evidence. 

But in this case there are confessions by four men that their votes 
were secured by bribery, and their confessions are corroborated by 
strong circumstantial evidence. 

If bribery can not be proved in the Senate by confessions of the 
bribe takers, corroborated by strong circumstantial evidence, then 
the conclusion is irresistible that only express contracts of bribery, 
duly authenticated by witnesses, can establish that crime to the 
satisfaction of the Senate of the United States. 

We are of the opinion that the evidence in this investigation shows 
conclusively that the following votes for William Lorimer were ob¬ 
tained by corrupt methods: Charles A. White, H. J. C. Beckemeyer, 
Michael Link, Joseph S. Clark, Henry A. Shepherd, Charles Luke, 
D. W. Holstlaw. 

As the vote of the bribe giver is equally corrupt as that of the bribe 
taker, we include the following votes: Lee O’Neil Browne, Robert E. 
Wilson, John Broderick. 


100 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


In view of the proof showing that the 10 votes of the members set 
out above were obtained by corruption, circumstantial and other 
evidence show that the following votes were also obtained by corrupt 
methods and practices: W. C. Blair, Thomas Tippitt, Henry L. 
Wheelan, John H. De Wolf, Cyril R. Jandus. 

It is impossible to quote from such a voluminous record any 
considerable part of the evidence upon which the above statements 
are based; but discussing briefly in their order the evidence relating 
to each of the votes as set out above, we find the following to be the 
facts: 

CHARLES A. WHITE. 

Charles A. White stated under oath that he was promised money 
by Lee O’Neil Browne, minority leader, to vote for William Lorimer 
on May 26, 1909, and that, pursuant to that promise, he was paid 
$1,000 by Lee O’Neil Browne, as follows: $100 cash before the 
legislature adjourned; $50 on the 16th of June, and $850 on the 17th 
of June; and that he was subsequently paid by Robert E. Wilson, as 
the agent and representative of Lee O’Neil Browne, $900 on July 15, 
1909, at the Southern Hotel in St. Louis. 

White’s testimony is corroborated by the following facts: 

(1) By the fact that White was in debt at the end of the legislative 
session and had drawn all of his salary several months before, and 
that, nevertheless, on June 18 or 19, after White met Browne in 
Chicago, White had a large amount of money which he deposited in 
a department store in St. Louis, which deposit w r as testified to at 
one of the hearings by Thos. P. Kirkpatrick, the cashier of the depart¬ 
ment store, and which testimony was made a part of this record. 

(2) White testified that immediately after the adjournment of the 
legislature in June, 1909, he wrote asking Browne for the balance of 
his Lorimer money, and the correspondence thereafter with Lee 
O’Neil Browne shows that Lee O’Neil Browne knew that White was 
short of funds at the adjournment of the legislature in June, 1909, 
and White expected money from him (Browne), as is shown by the 
following letter of Lee O’Neil Browne to Charles A. White, in answer 
to the letter of White asking for his money. 


Ottawa, III., June 9, 1909. 

Hon. Charles A. White, O' Fallon, III. 

My Dear Charlie: I did not get home until the night of Monday, June 7, when I 
found your letter awaiting me. I wish you had spoken to me of the matters contained 
in your letter before we left Springfield. It would have been comparatively easy for 
me at that time to have advised with you personally and properly. It is far more 
difficult now, and I would hardly know what to say to you without seeing you per¬ 
sonally. In any event, unless you would care to see me before that time by coming 
here or meeting me in Chicago, I expect to see you and have a visit with you some time 
within the next two weeks. I shall be only too glad to advise with you along the line 
of the matters referred to, and suggest anything that may be appropriate and proper. 
You know where I stand, old man, and that I will go my length for you. Should you 
find it necessary to see me before the end of the next two weeks, you had better arrange 
to come to Chicago and meet me there. However, as matters stand, and in the way 
that I am tied up with business matters now, I would prefer to put off the meeting for 
the length of time I have stated. I want you to feel and realize that I am as good a 
friend as you have in the world, and that I am not only willing but ready to do any¬ 
thing in my power for you at any time. My best regards to you. 

Very sincerely, your friend, 


Lee O’Neil Browne. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


101 


And by another letter, under date of June 13, 1909, which is as 
follows: 

Ottawa, III., June 13, 1909. 

Friend Charles: Your letter did not reach me till too late to do any good. I was 
in Chicago, but could not have remained longer had I got your letter. Got home here 
this evening and am due in court to-morrow a. m. But, Charlie, I will be in Chicago 
Tuesday or Wednesday sure. (This is under your hat, though, for I do not want to 
be bothered by every job hunter in Chicago.) If you can wait, I’ll do my best to see 
you. I’ll be at the Briggs when there. 

In haste, Browne. 

And that in spite of the fact that Browne knew White needed 
money at that time, yet after he had had his interview with White in 
Chicago on June 16 and 17, he wrote, saying, among other things: 

Perhaps, however, you had better wait and save the money for the next campaign. 

Showing thereby that Browne knew White had money at that 
time; and by the letter which Browne wrote to White on July 16, 
1909, the day after Wilson paid White $900 more in St. Louis, accord¬ 
ing to White’s testimony, in which Browne said, among other things: 

I did not dare to attempt the trip. I hope everything is all right with you and 
satisfactory and that you are happy and fairly prosperous. 

(3) That White, with at least five other members of the legislature, 
met Wilson in St. Louis on July 15, 1909, in response to telegrams 
from Wilson, and that no satisfactory reason for this meeting was 
ever given, and that several of the members of the legislature meeting 
Wilson were shortly thereafter proved to have had a large amount of 
currency in their possession, chiefly in bills of large denomination. 

(4) By the threats of White to blackmail Browne and Lorimer, 
which were made in August, 1909, to friends of Browne, and which 
were doubtless communicated to Browne, and by the thinly veiled 
threats of exposure by White in a letter to Browne of October 20,1909, 
in which he stated, according to his testimony, he knew Lorimer and 
Browne were under no obligations to him, since he had received his 
part of the Lorimer and jack-pot money, and the fact that thereafter 
Browme and Senator Lorimer both tried to secure positions paying 
satisfactory salaries to White. For if White had had no knowledge 
that would be injurious to Lorimer or Browne, he could not have 
blackmailed them successfully, and there would have been no reason 
to obtain the position that was secured for him by Senator Lorimer, 
through Lee O’Neil Browne, after these threats, or no reason to try 
to placate White. On the contrary, innocent men would indignantly 
have refused to have anything else to do with such a blackmailer. 

H. J. C. BECKEMEYER. 

Mr. Beckemeyer testified that he was paid $1,000 by Lee O’Neil 
Browne at St. Louis, at the Southern Hotel, on June 21, 1909, and 
that Mr. Browne, in paying him the $1,000, said: “ This is the Lorimer 
money,” and that there would be some more in the future, and that 
he was paid $900 additional in St. Louis at the same hotel on July 15, 
1909, by Robert E. Wilson, Browne’s agent, and that on both of these 
trips to St.Louis he met other members of the legislature, to wit, 
Henry A. Shepherd, Michael Link, Joseph S. Clark, Charles Luke, and, 
on the last trip, Charles A. White. 


102 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


This confession is corroborated by the fact that Beckemeyer sub¬ 
sequent thereto, on the 7th day of August, 1909, deposited five $100 
bills in the Commercial Trust Co. of St. Louis, and that he was iden¬ 
tified at the trust company by a Mr. Gray, and which is corroborated 
by Mr. Gray. 

Beckemeyer’s testimony is further corroborated by the testimony 
of Shepherd, White, Link, and Clark, to the extent of establishing 
that they saw Beckemeyer in St. Louis on the days named, and by the 
testimony of Browne and Wilson admitting that they met Becke¬ 
meyer in St. Louis on the days named, and by the further fact that 
Beckemeyer attempted to deny, when he was first before the grand 
jury, that he had ever been to St. Louis; by his actions when the 
report became current that White was to make an exposure of the 
members of the legislature who voted for Lorimer, and by the letter 
which Wilson and Beckemeyer agreed at their conference in Spring- 
field in April, 1910, relative to the White exposure, should be written 
so as to give an excuse for the trip to St. Louis when Wilson was there 
on July 15, 1909. The letter is as follows: 

Chicago, June 26, 1909. 

Hon. H. J. C. Beckemeyer, 

Carlisle, III. 

Friend Beckemeyer: Doc. Allison was speaking to me regarding getting up a 
banquet for Lee in his home town, Ottawa, and asked that I take matter up with 
some of the hoys. I expect to go to St. Louis in the near future in connection with 
our submerged land committee, and will advise you in advance as to when I will be 
there, and would like you to meet me. 

With best wishes to you, I am. 

Very truly, yours, Robert E. Wilson. 

The agreement for this letter to be written and antedated nearly 
a year, the telephone messages from Wilson to Beckemeyer to meet 
him in Springfield on April 21, 1910, the registering of Beckemeyer 
at the hotel in Springfield, where he went for that conference with 
Wilson, under the assumed name of J. Daugherty, marked both 
Beckemeyer and Wilson at that time as criminals who were fearing 
that their crime would be detected, who were preparing evidence to 
protect themselves, and who were afraid of everybody and every¬ 
thing; all of which corroborates Beckemeyer’s story and, establish¬ 
ing its truth, proves the corruption of both Beckemeyer and Wilson. 
The long-distance telephone message from Wilson for Browne to 
Beckemeyer to keep his lips sealed as soon as Browne heard of 
White and Tierney’s visit to Beckemeyer is another link in the chain 
of evidence corroborating Beckemeyer. 

MICHAEL LINK. 

Michael Link testified before the former investigating committee 
of the Senate, and his testimony by agreement was put in this 
record, that he received $1,000 from Browne at the Southern Hotel 
in St. Louis on June 21, 1909, and $900 from Robert E. Wilson, 
Browne’s agent, at the Southern Hotel, in St. Louis, on July 15, 1909; 
that he had gone there on both occasions in response to a letter or 
telegram from Browne or Wilson. This testimony is corroborated by 
the testimony of other members of the legislature that they saw 
Link in St. Louis on the two occasions mentioned by him, and further 
by the fact that he originally denied, before the grand jury, even 
having gone to St. Louis, and stated that he had committed perjury 
because he did not desire to incriminate himself. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


103 


JOSEPH A. CLARK. 

If the confessions of White, Beckemeyer, and Link are true, 
and other corroborating evidence makes it impossible to deny their 
truthfulness, then Clark’s vote was also corrupt, as he was one of the 
Democratic members of the legislature who voted for Lorimer, 
and who was summoned by Browne and Wilson to meet them in 
St. Louis on June 21 and July 15, 1909, respectively, and who did 
meet them there on those dates, with other members of the legisla¬ 
ture who admitted receiving “Lorimer money,” or Browne and 
Wilson would have to ben regarded as summoning an innocent man 
to witness the consummation of the crime of bribery between Browne 
and Wilson on the one hand and White, Beckemeyer, and Link on 
the other. 

Ihe whole record makes it impossible to believe that Clark did not 
also receive the sum of $1,000 from Lee O’Neil Browne on June 21, 
1909, at St. Louis, and on July 15, 1909, $900 from Robert E. Wilson, 
even in the face of the fact that Clark absolutely denied that he 
received any money from anyone at any time. 

1 he record shows that Link, Beckemeyer, White, and Luke all had 
large sums of money after their conference at St. Louis; and with con¬ 
fessions by Beckemeyer, White, and Link, corroborated by circum¬ 
stantial evidence establishing this, it is impossible to take any other 
view of the case than that Clark also received similar sums of money 
upon his visit to St. Louis. 

HENRY A. SHEPHARD. 

Henry A. Shephard was a banker and a Democratic representative 
in the legislature of 1909. He lived at Jerseyville, Ill. Shephard 
claimed that Air. Lorimer gave him a distinct promise that a certain 
man should not be appointed as postmaster at Jerseyville, and that 
this was the only consideration which moved him to vote for Lorimer. 

The record, however, shows that Shephard went to St. Louis on 
June 21, 1909, and met Browne there with lank, Beckemeyer, Clark, 
and Luke; that he went to St. Louis again on July 15, 1909, and met 
Robert E. Wilson there, the above-named representative also being 
present in St. Louis on that day, as well as Charles A. White. Shep¬ 
hard was notified in advance both by Browne and Wilson to meet 
them there at those times. 

Shephard’s testimony is full of contradictions. At one of the for¬ 
mer hearings he testified that he went to his bank box at the Mercan¬ 
tile Trust Co. in St. Louis before he saw Robert Wilson. This record 
discloses that Shephard went to the Southern Hotel and met Wilson 
and that after his interview with Wilson he went to his safety deposit 
box in the Mercantile Trust Co. This is borne out by the records 
of the Trust Co. in that they show the hour at which Shephard went 
into the vault, which is subsequent to the time he testified he had 
his interview with Wilson; nor did he deny at these hearings that his 
visit to the bank box was subsequent to his interview with Wilson. 
He attempts to explain both visits to St. Louis on the flimsy pretext 
of getting packing for his automobile. The fact of his being present 
on both of those occasions when others admitted that they received 
money; the visit to his bank box immediately after his interview with 
Wilson, coupled with the statement by Beckemeyer that Shephard 


104 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


was given one of the larger bills because he was a banker and could 
pass it more easily, with Shephard’s contradictions upon the stand, 
with his communication with Browne and Wilson immediately before 
the exposure of White was made but after the visit of White and 
Tierney to Shephard, and with his registering in Chicago under an 
assumed name, upon his trip there when he saw" Browne and Wilson 
just before White’s exposure was published, are sufficient to warrant 
the conclusion that he was one of those who received money for the 
purpose of voting for Senator Lorimer. 

CHARLES LUKE. 

Charles Luke, a Democratic member of the general assembly of 
1909 and a member of the Browne faction, went to St. Louis for the 
purpose of meeting Browne on June 21, 1909, and Wilson on July 15, 
1909, in response to a telegram from Browne and Wilson. Luke died 
before any of the investigations in this case began, and his testimony 
is therefore not in any of the records; but his wife testified that about 
the time of his visit to St. Louis in July, 1909, he had $950 in large 
bills. These facts, coupled with the statements that he made to 
various people as to their being money in the senatorial election 
beginning with the time when he evidently expected to get money by 
causing a band of Democrats to vote for Hopkins, and the statements 
made to White as to a “jack pot” in the legislature, corroborated by 
the fact that other members of the legislature who were in St. Louis 
on these two occasions admitted receiving money, warrants the con¬ 
clusion that Luke also was one of the receivers of “Lorimer money” 
as the result of casting his vote for Lorimer. 

Luke, Clark, Link, Beckemeyer, Shephard, and White must all 
stand together as innocent men or fall together as guilty. Link, 
Beckemeyer, and White confess, and circumstances and their own 
actions establish the truth of their confession. While Clark and 
Shephard deny their guilt, their attempts to explain their presence in 
St. Louis in Browne and Wilson’s room at the Southern Hotel upon 
the occasions when the confessed crimes of bribery were being com¬ 
mitted; their attitude upon the witness stand; their efforts to 
conceal their movements and identity while they were going about 
conferring with Browne and Wilson after it had become known 
that White was going to make an exposure; their contradictions 
and other circumstantial evidence make them fall with Beckemeyer, 
Link, and White. Luke’s record is the same as Clark’s and Shep¬ 
hard’s, except there is no testimony by him in any record. 

D. W. HOLSTLAW. 

D. W. Holstlaw testified that he was told by Senator Broderick 
before he voted for Senator Lorimer that there was $2,500 in it for 
him, and that, while he would have voted for Lorimer anyhow, sub¬ 
sequently thereto he was told by Broderick that he would be notified 
when he was to come to Chicago; and on June 15, 1910, he received 
a letter from Senator Broderick asking him to meet him in Chicago; 
that he wired Mr. Broderick that he would meet him there, and on 
the next day arrived in Chicago and went out to Broderick’s saloon; 
that Broderick gave him $2,500 in currency, and that he too s k the 
money to the State Bank in Chicago, introduced himself to the 
president of the bank, who caused Newton, the chief clerk, to make 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMER. 


105 


out a deposit slip, in duplicate, placing this amount to the credit of 
the Holstlaw Bank in Iuka, Ill., the Chicago correspondent of 
which was the State Bank ; that again, in August, 1909, he was notified 
by Broderick to come to Chicago, and that he went to Chicago and 
received $700 from Broderick, which he likewise deposited in the same 
manner at the State Bank in Chicago. 

Holstlaw’s testimony is corroborated by the testimony of the 
president, the chief clerk, and another official of the State Bank of 
Chicago, who testified that Mr. Holstlaw, on the dates mentioned in 
his testimony, deposited $2,500 and $700 in currency, respectively; 
and by an examination of the books by the committee’s expert 
accountant. 

This investigation has resulted in removing all doubts as to the 
correctness of Holstlaw’s testimony and confessions, in that the mis¬ 
spelling of the Holstlaw name on the duplicate deposit slip, which was 
made much of in the last investigation, has been cleared up and 
shown to have been written by the chief clerk of the bank in Chicago 
instead of by Holstlaw. 

The record also discloses the letters and correspondence between 
Broderick and Holstlaw asking Holstlaw to come to Chicago, which 
are of much value, inasmuch as Broderick denied that he ever sent for 
Holstlaw to come to Chicago to see him. 

LEE o’NEIL BROWNE. 

Lee O’Neil Browne was the majority leader of the Democrats in 
the legislature of 1909. There is no dispute that Browne was in St. 
Louis on June 21, 1909, and his correspondence shows that he had 
intended going to St. Louis on July 15, 1909, for the purpose of meet¬ 
ing certain Democratic members of the legislature who voted for 
Senator Lorimer. 

It can not be seriously questioned that Wilson and Browne upon 
the occasions of these two trips to St. Louis did distribute money to 
certain members of the legislature. This fact being admitted as a 
result of an investigation, it only remains to determine for what pur¬ 
pose this money was distributed. Three members of the legislature 
who met Browne and Wilson in Chicago and St. Louis testified that 
they received money, and two of them that it was “Lorimer money.” 

The visit to St. Louis, and the other one planned but not carried out, 
with the confessions of Beckemeyer, White, and Link, established 
that these three and others were bribed to vote for Lorimer, and that 
Browne was the man who bribed them and the man who paid them. 
There is no doubt also that Browne was one of the chief managers of 
Lorimer’s campaign, and that, with Speaker Shurtleff and Senator 
Lorimer, the campaign was planned and carried to a successful con¬ 
clusion. That Browne was in the business of buying votes to elect 
Lorimer is further evidenced by the fact that Browne unsuccessfully 
solicited Meyers, a Democratic member of the legislature—a man of 
high standing—to vote for Lorimer, and said to him: “There is some 
good State jobs to give away yet and plenty of the ready necessary.” 

ROBERT E. WILSON. 

m 

The same principle that applies to Browne applies with equal force 
to Robert E. Wilson. The two are linked absolutely together, and 
as the vote of the bribe giver is equally corrupt with that of the bribe 


106 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


taker, Wilson’s vote stands as putrid as those of White, Beckemeyer, 
and Link, who confessed. As has been shown in the summary of the 
evidence of those members of the legislature who went to St. Louis, 
Robert E. Wilson was the man who made the trip to that on July 
15, 1909, for the purpose of distributing money to certain members 
of the legislature who had voted for Lorimer. 

The explanation that Wilson gave upon the stand as a reason for 
his trip to St. Louis is far-fetched and is of no force when considered 
with the statements of Beckemeyer that this excuse was made by 
Wilson after White’s exposure was threatened, when Wilson was going 
about the State meeting the members of the legislature to whom he 
had given money; and that in furtherance of this plan of making 
evidence for the defense, Wilson had written a letter in regard to the 
St. Louis trip to the members of the legislature who met him there, 
antedating nearly a year. On the contrary this evidence discloses 
that Wilson was preparing a defense at that time by false statements 
in which he was getting other members of the legislature to acquiesce, 
which is inconsistent with the idea that Wilson was guiltless. 

Wilson’s attitude when the first investigation was had in Chicago, 
in 1910, when he left this country going to Canada and registering 
there under an assumed name, and staying out of the country until 
after the investigation in Chicago was finished, is another circum¬ 
stance tending to prove his guilt and negativing the idea of 
innocence. 

JOHN BRODERICK. 

Broderick stands upon the same footing as Browne and Wilson. 
The confession of Ilolstlaw, corroborated by other evidence, estab¬ 
lishes that Broderick promised Holstlaw $2,500 for voting for Lor¬ 
imer; that in pursuance of this promise, and before the legislature 
adjourned, Broderick told Holstlaw he would notify him when 
Holstlaw should come to Chicago; that thereafter, on June 16, 
Holstlaw received a letter from Broderick, telling him to come to 
Chicago the next day; that Holstlaw thereafter went to Chicago, ar¬ 
riving there on the 17th of June, going straight to Broderick’s saloon, 
where he was paid $2,500 in currency, which money was deposited, 
as has been shown heretofore, by Holstlaw in the State Bank of Chi¬ 
cago; that thereafter Broderick wrote another letter to Holstlaw 
stating that he would like to see him in Chicago not later than 4 p.m., 
Saturday, August 28, and that again Holstlaw went directly to Chi¬ 
cago, and upon his arrival there went to Broderick’s saloon, where he 
received $700, which he likewise deposited in the State Bank in 
Chicago. 

Broderick’s attitude on the stand was a brazen attempt to deceive 
the committee. He testified first that he did not know how Holstlaw 
happened to come to Chicago, that he had not invited him there and 
was much surprised to see him the day of his arrival; but after his 
letter was produced, asking Holstlaw to come to Chicago to see him 
Broderick admitted writing the letter. There can be no doubt from 
this record that Holstlaw was bribed and voted for Lorimer, and that 
Broderick was the bribe giver. 

WILLIAM C. BLAIR. 

William C. Blair was a Democratic member of the legislature, 
residing at Mount Vernon, Ill. He is a lawyer, greatly dissipated, 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


107 


appearing more than once before the committee in a state of intoxi¬ 
cation once to such an extent that he was ordered from the witness 
stand. 

Mr. Blair voted for the Democratic candidate for United States 
Senator on every ballot up to the last, with one exception, when he 
cast a complimentary vote for one Murray. On the last ballot he 
voted for Lorimer. 

A few days prior to the election of Lorimer he told A. C. Tanner, 
a grocer of Mount Vernon, that he was thinking of voting for Lorimer 
and that it meant a great deal to him. 

Benjamin F. Moore, sheriff of Wabash County, III., had a conversa¬ 
tion with Blair the night before the senatorial election, in which 
Blair proclaimed his loyalty to Stringer, the Democratic candidate. 
Soon after the election Blair talked with Mr. Moore on the subject 
and told him that he (Blair) would have been very foolish to have 
voted for Stringer and let all' of the Lorimer money go by him and 
not get his part of it. 

In the month of July, 1909, about the 20th, Blair attended a base¬ 
ball game at Centralia, Ill., was under the influence of liquor and 
exhibited a roll of bills in the presence of several witnesses, Mr. 
Tanner testifying that he observed in the roll at least eleven $100“ 
bills. 

As Blair was in debt, owing about $2,000, as he says, with a mort¬ 
gage of $1,300 on his home, impecunious and insolvent, the display 
of this large sum of money excited considerable comment. In 
answer to Mr. Tanner’s inquiry as to where he got the money, Blair 
said he was in consultation with a client about an important case, 
and had gotten a portion of his fee from him; that he had been at 
Olney, III , and had come directly from Olney to Centralia that day, 
the day of the baseball game. 

It will be remembered that Olney was the home of Thomas Tippitt, 
the leader of the so-called Tippitt faction to which Blair belonged. 
Tippitt and Blair lived in the same senatorial district. 

Blair in his testimony before the committee undertook to account 
for his possession of the roll of $100 bills exhibited by him at the base¬ 
ball game. He first testified that in the summer of 1909 he had four 
or five $100 bills in his possession. He afterwards gave the number 
of $100 bills as five, which he said he had put in the custody of his 
wife, who kept them in a closet at their home. A little later he testi¬ 
fied that his best recollection was that he must have had six or eight 
$100 bills, and that he believed he took as many as eight $100 bills with 
him to the baseball game. 

A little further along in his testimony, when recalled to the stand, 
he said that his best recollection was that he had from $600 to $1,100 
with him at the baseball game. 

His explanations as to where he got the money were confused and 
contradictory. His salary as member of the legislature was $2,000 
per annum. 

He testified first that he drew $400 on his salary early in the session, 
in January, and received the balance at the close of the session, about 
June 4; that the State treasurer paid him $1,400 about that date—a 
day or two before he started home—part of it in $100 bills; that when 
he got home he gave his wife $800, mostly in $100 bills, and paid out 
the other $600 on his debts; that his wife kept this money until he 
took it out of the closet on the day of the baseball game. 


108 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


The books of the treasurer of state showed that Blair had drawn all 
his salary before the 20th of February; and the books of the Ham 
National Bank, of Mount Vernon, and the canceled warrants on the 
State treasury showed that Blair had deposited the last salary war¬ 
rants, amounting to over $1,300, on February 12 and February 22, in 
the Ham National Bank, and that it was all checked out very soon 
thereafter, leaving an overdraft of $1.40, which was not paid until 
July 7 following. 

Mr. Blair’s financial condition on July 20, when he says he took the 
roll of $100 bills from his closet, was described by him briefly as 
follows: 

The tank was threatening to sue me for two hundred and odd dollars. I owed the 
Ham National Bank same four hundred and odd dollars, and I owed the Jefferson 
State Bank some money—between $100 and $200—and I owed the Third National 
Bank some $200 or over, and I owed store bills there. 

This was in addition to the $1,300 mortgage on his home, which had 
been running for five years still unpaid. He afterwards testified that 
his debts outside of the mortgage would run nearly $2,000. 

When confronted with the books of the State Treasurer and the 
bank, showing conclusively that his statement as to having drawn 
this money on his salary account was utterly false, Mr. Blair became 
confused and was unable to account for a single one of the several 
$100 bills which he admits that he exhibited at the baseball game. 

The attention of Senators is invited to the testimony of this man, 
after he was thus shown to be a wilful falsifier, for a striking example 
of the most stupid, bungling piece of perjury ever resorted to by a 
corruptionist in a futile attempt to cover his tracks and hide his 
infamy. 

But where did Blair get the money? It will be remembered that 
Thomas Tippitt was the leader of one of the democratic factions in 
the legislature, and Lee O’Neil Browne the leader of the other. Both 
voted for Lorimer on the last ballot. Each was leading his follow¬ 
ers to Lorimer. It will also be remembered that Robert E. Wilson, 
Browne’s agent on account of the latter’s inability to act in person, 
paid the second installment of the corruption money to Browne’s 
southern Illinois followers on the 15th of July. 

We find Mr. Blair visting Olney, the home of Thomas Tippitt, on 
the 19th of July, without any explanation for the visit. The evidence 
shows that Blair and Tippitt were together there on that day. Blair 
left Olney and went directly to Centralia, where he exhibited at least 
$1,100 in $100 bills—bills of the same denomination in which Browne’s 
southern Illinois followers were paid in St. Louis. He is unable to 
explain where he obtained the money. He committed deliberate 
perjury w r hen attempting to explain, "and then broke down utterly 
m his further attempts at explanation. But this is not all. 

Both Blair and Tippitt denied that they had met in Olney in July. 
Blair swore that he had not been in Olney. 

Yet he was confronted with the hotel register, showing that he 
was at Olney that day, and the local newspaper chronicled his pres¬ 
ence there that day. Mr. Rowland, a reputable editor and lawyer, 
testified that he saw him there that morning inquiring for Thomas 
Tippitt, and Judge John A. McNeil, a highly reputable lawyer and 
ex-county judge, saw Tippitt and Blair meet in Olney on the street 
in the morning about that time in July and walk off together. 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


109 


The facts that Blair falsely denied being in Olney at all during that 
month and that Tippitt and Blair both felt called upon to deny that 
they had seen each other in Olney are particularly significant, and 
throw much light on the question as to where Blair got the money. 

THOMAS TIPPITT. . 

The preceding discussion of Blair’s vote, in view of the confessions 
of other members of the Legislature of Illinois and the proof of their 
corruption in voting for Senator Lorimer, establishes that Blair’s 
vote was corruptly cast for Lorimer and that he received his share of 
the corruption fund from Thomas Tippitt. The bribe giver being 
equally guilty with the bribe taker, Tippitt’s vote for Lorimer under 
this view was as corrupt as that of Blair. 

JOHN H. DE WOLF. 

John H. De Wolf was a Democratic member, a farmer, residing at 
Canton, who voted for Lorimer on the last ballot. It was De Wolf, 
according to White’s testimony, who on the day before the senatorial 
election asked him if he had been up to the trough yet, adding with 
an oath, ‘ ‘ Well, I have already been up to the trough and got mine. ” 

In explaining this De Wolf testified that while he did not remember 
it he might have said to White, “Have you been up to the trough?” 
but if he did he meant to inquire if White had been up to the bar, as 
he often used the word “trough” in referring to the bar. 

Ex-Senator Hopkins and others testified as to the rumor that a 
plan was on foot among certain Democratic members at one time to 
sell enough votes to insure Hopkins’s election. 

So much credence was given to this report that Roger Sullivan 
came down from Chicago to head off the movement. 

De Wolf testified that he and some others devised this plan as a 
joke, one of his purposes, as he says, being to have some one telegraph 
Roger Sullivan, and he would thereby be induced to come down to 
Springfield and buy the members some nice, black cigars. 

This jocular individual bought 62 acres of land in August, 1909, 
and paid $600 of the purchase money in bills of a large denomination. 

In accounting for his possession of these bills he testified that he 
kept them in a Bible at his home and had so kept them for three 
months or longer. 

He had a checking account at the bank; does not remember when 
or the circumstances under which he placed the money in the Holy 
Book, and did not remember where he got it. His efforts to 
explain the possession of this money were grotesquely ludicrous. 

HENRY L. WHEELAN. 

Henry L. Wheelan is an insurance and real-estate agent, residing 
at Rock Island. He was the Democratic representative from that 
county, and on the last ballot voted for Lorimer. 

His vote had been solicited some time before by one Hughes, a 
business associate of Mr. Lorimer, in the contracting business, and 
also by McCarthy & Walsh, of Davenport, Iowa, friends of Lorimer, 
and also contractors. These men deny that they resorted to any¬ 
thing but moral suasion in the effort to procure Wheelan’s vote. 


110 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LOEIMEE. 


In the fall of 1909 Wlieelan purchased real estate and paid at least 
$1,000 of the purchase price in $100 bills. 

He says he borrowed three of these bills from one Cox, a stone¬ 
cutter and ex-policeman, who told him that he had that amount 
“planted,” and that he borrowed seven $100 bills from a lawyer of 
the name of Scott; both loans being without security, Wheelan having 
no property save that which he was purchasing. 

Cox testified that while he had a bank account, he had been carry¬ 
ing these three $100 bills around on his person for two or three months, 
to conceal the fact from his wife. 

The lawyer, Scott, testified that he also had an account in a bank 
across the street from his office, but that he had been carrying the 
$700 in bills in his pocket for a week or two weeks before he loaned 
it to Wheelan. 

The efforts of Cox and Scott to explain where they respectively 
obtained the money were strikingly similar to those of Blair and De 
Wolf, hereinbefore referred to. 

CYEIL E. JANDUS. 

Mr. Jandus is a typical Chicago ward politician, and has trained 
with the gang for a long time. 

He is a Democrat, represented a Chicago district in the State Senate, 
and voted for Lorimer on the last ballot. According to his testimony, 
he was an habitue of Senator John Broderick’s saloon, played poker, 
and when not engaged in politics or poker, practiced law. 

Mr. Jandus was in Broderick’s saloon on the occasion of the first of 
Senator Holstlaw’s visits there, and was one of Broderick’s witnesses. 

The bipartisan Chicago machine has provided him with a position 
in the county clerk’s office, which he now holds. 

Jandus also was buying property soon after the election of Senator 
Lorimer, paying out considerable sums of money therefor. He testi¬ 
fied that he had about $5,300 in large bills which he kept in a tin box 
in his office vault, which was accessible to other occupants of the 
office; that he had been accumulating this money for a long time, 
half of it being in $100 bills. He was unable to N inform the committee 
as to where he had procured any one of these bills. 

He had a bank account, and why he kept this large sum in his office, 
which was occupied by four other persons, was not explained. 

His testimony as to the sources from which he might have derived 
part of the money is of such character as to place him in the class with 
Blair, De Wolf, and Wlieelan. 

Another important fact developed by this investigation was that 
no third-degree or improper methods were used in examining the 
members of the legislature as witnesses before the grand juries in Cook 
and Sangamon Counties. District Attorneys Wavman and Burke 
testified that no improper methods were used and no witnesses were 
terrorized or forced through fear to give testimony that was false, 
ana there is no evidence that successfully rebuts this testimony . 

In view of these facts, sufficient votes having been corrupted, it is 
not necessary for us to show either Senator Lorimer’s connection 
with or guilty knowledge of the corruption, nor is it necessary for us 
to trace the source of the corruption fund. But we can not conclude 
our statement to the Senate without making the observation that 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMEK. 


Ill 


Senator Lorimer’s hand was the guiding force in shaping the action 
of the legislature of Illinois in 1909 from soon after its organization 
until the day of his election, and that he was in such close consulta¬ 
tion with Speaker Shurtleff and minority leader Lee O’Neil Browne 
as to justify the belief that these men were his agents and to warrant 
our holding him bound by their actions. 

The agency of these men is so thoroughly established that Senator 
Lorimer could reap no reward by virtue of their wrongful action 
without being equally guilty and responsible for their wrongdoing. 

The relations between Senator Lorimer and Lee O’Neil Browne 
are established by Senator Lorimer’s own testimony, as well as 
Browne’s, in which Senator Lorimer stated that he felt the criminal 
actions brought against Browne were on account of Browne’s rela¬ 
tions with him, and that, therefore, he was under moral obligation 
to do as he did—furnish Browne with money with which to defend 
himself, irrespective of whether Browne was ever able to refund the 
money thus advanced. The testimony upon this point is as follows: 

Senator Lorimer. Not exactly, Judge, but somewhere in the neighborhood of 
$8,000 or $10,000. I am not sure of the exact amount. 

Mr. Hanecy. And did you loan it to him at different times and in different 
amounts? 

Senator Lorimer. Why, yes. I will tell you how that came about, Judge. He 
came to see me at the bank, and was talking about the White matter. 

Mr. Hanecy. The matter of Charles A. White? 

Senator Lorimer. Yes. I asked him about his financial condition, and he said 
that he had a good practice and made all the money he needed, but that he had no 
money saved up, and he said that he did not have money enough to employ the law¬ 
yers he thought necessary to conduct his case, and I told him I would let him have 
some money; but he said that he did not know when I would get it back, and if he 
died soon I would never get it back. I told him that was all right; that this fight was 
really a fight on me and not on him; that they did not care anything about him; what 
they were trying to do was to get me out of my seat in the Senate. So I loaned him 
the money from time to time as he asked for it, and I think somewhere in the neigh¬ 
borhood of $10,000. 

Mr. Hanecy. That is, you told him the fight that was being made on him by the 
State’s attorney and the Tribune in Chicago was for the purpose of convicting or dis¬ 
crediting him and thereby unseating you? 

Senator Lorimer. Yes. The real purpose of the fight on Lee O’Neil Browne was 
then, and is now, to unseat me. 

Mr. Hanecy. These fights on Browne have been carried on and won by Browne in 
every trial and contest that have been made against him? 

Senator Lorimer. Yes. 

Senator Kern. Did you take his note for this money? 

Senator Lorimer. I did not. 

Senator Kern. What account did you keep of it? 

Senator Lorimer. I do not know whether I have checks for it or not, Senator. 

Senator Kern. In what form was it paid? 

Senator Lorimer. I say I do not know. He always came to the bank, and I do not 
know whether I drew checks to my own order and got the money for him or gave . 
him checks and he got the money himself. I do not recall. 

Senator Kern. Did you make a charge of it? 

Senator Lorimer. It is not very much of an account at that. I have always con¬ 
sidered that if Lee O’Neil Browne was never aHe to pay me that money, it was money 
which I ought to have contributed to help him in the contest. It was my fight and 
not his. 

Senator Kern. You kept no account of it at all? 

Senator Lorimer. I think I could tell how much it was by looking over my affairs 
at home. 

Senator Kern. No; that is not it. I am asking you whether you kept any account 
of it. 

Senator Lorimer. Do you mean that I kept books of it? I did not. 

Senator Kern. You made no entry on any book of the amount you advanced him? 

Senator Lorimer. No; I did not. * * * 


S. Kept. 769, 62-2, pts 1 & 2-8 



112 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LOEIMEK. 


Senator Kern. Has Mr. Browne paid you any of the sum which you advanced him? 

Senator Lorimer. No; he has not, and from what I know of his financial condition 
just now, I do not think he will do so within a very short time, because he called on me 
at the bank the other day and told me that he was very much in debt on account of 
his trials, and that he would not be able to give me any money for a considerable time. 
That is, he came to me to find out whether I insisted on his paying me back or whether 
he should pay the other debts that he owes, and I told him to pay the other debts. 

Senator Kern. Do you expect the return of this money? 

Senator Lorimer. I do. 


While there is conflicting testimony in regard to any money being 
furnished by Edward Hines for the purpose of electing William 
Lorimer, we believe that the evidence shows conclusively that the 
interest of Edward Hines in the election of William Lorimer was more 
than the ordinary interest of a citizen desiring the election of a 
particular candidate. 

The attitude of Mr. Hines upon the witness stand, his furnishing 
money to one of the material witnesses in his behalf, Charles P. 
McGowan, beyond the expenses incurred by McGowan in coming to 
Washington to testify, and his attempting to induce, by the payment 
of money, a telephone operator at the New Willard Hotel to furnish 
copies of messages sent by the Burns agency, which had formerly been 
in the employ of the committee, established Mr. Hines’s character as 
one that looked upon everything and everybody as being purchasable, 
and the only question of doubt in his mind being the amount of money 
necessary to purchase this or that person. 

The fact that neither Mr. Hines’s books nor the books of the Hines 
Lumber Co. show the collection or disbursement of any corruption 
fund does not establish that no such fund was collected or disbursed; 
for it is inconceivable that a man of even Mr. Hines’s indifference 
to such methods would be bold enough to make a permanent record 
of such a crime upon his books or those of his company. 

The undisputed facts, however, do show that when Mr. Hines left 
Washington, on May 25, 1909, armed, as he says, with the commands 
of leaders Aldrich and Penrose to the Legislature of Illinois to elect 
William Lorimer—for the purpose of going directly to Springfield, Ill., 
to assist in the election of William Lorimer—that he was met at the 
train in Chicago by his brother-in-law and confidential agent, C. F. 
Wiehe, who imparted information to him that caused his direct 
journey to Springfield to be abandoned, and instead of going directly 
to Springfield, Mr. Hines went directly to his bank, the Continental 
Commercial National Bank, and after a conference with the president 
of the bank, telephoned to Mr. Lorimer, and later telephoned again, 
to either Mr. Lorimer or some one else in Springfield interested in 
Lorimer’s election. 

At this point the evidence is conflicting. Mr. Plines, his employees 
and associates in business, whom he has introduced as corroborating 
witnesses, insist that the telephone conversation related only to mes¬ 
sages which Mr. Hines was bearing as a courier from the Republican 
leaders at Washington to the Republican bosses in Springfield. 
Although w T hy Mr. Hines should take the long trip from Washington 
to Chicago for the purpose of telephoning from Chicago to Spring- 
field messages that might have been telephoned as well and more 
quickly from Washington to Springfield has never been satisfac¬ 
torily explained by Mr. Hines or any of his employe-witnesses, 
while it is testified to by other witnesses, one of whom, Wirt 
Cook, admitted personal animosity and hostility toward Hines—and 


ELECTION OF WILLIAM LORIMER. 


113 


whose testimony must be weighed with this fact in mind—that 
Hines’s telephone message to Springfield was for the purpose of 
advising those directing Mr. Lorimer’s campaign at Springfield that 
all of the money necessary to elect Mr. Lorimer was available. 

This testimony, if true, would explain the unexpected interruption 
of the journey from Washington to Springfield at Chicago, the visit 
to the bank before telephoning Lorimer at Springfield, and the sub¬ 
sequent request of Hines to Funk to contribute $10,000 to the $100,000 
fund to put Lorimer over. 

The fact that Mr. Hines did telephone to Springfield relative to 
the election of Lorimer immediately after his visit to his bank is 
admitted by Mr. Hines, the difference in the proof being as to the 
purpose of the telephone communication. It is at least a remarkable 
coincidence that the election of Senator Lorimer, which had been 
doubtful up to that time, followed almost immediately after Hines’s 
visit to his bank and his telephone message to Springfield—a coin¬ 
cidence that is illuminated by the statement of Wirt Cook that 
Hines, in his message to Springfield, promised all the money required 
to elect Lorimer. 

The visit of Mr. Hines to his bank prior to this telephone conversa¬ 
tion gives color and additional weight to the statements of the wit¬ 
nesses who testified that Mr. Hines’s telephonic messages to Spring- 
field promised funds for the purpose of electing Senator Lorimer. 
Such a purpose is further corroborated by the testimony of Clarence 
Funk and W. M. Burgess, the former testifying that Hines asked him 
to subscribe on behalf of his company, the International Harvester 
Co., the sum of $10,000 to reimburse those who had put Senator 
Lorimer over, and the latter who testified that C. F. Wiehe, Hines’s 
brother-in-law and confidential representative, stated that he had 
subscribed $10,000 toward the fund to elect Lorimer. 

Mr. Hines denies absolutely the testimony of the witness Funk, 
but the motive which Mr. Hines and Senator Lorimer attempt to 
ascribe as the reason for Funk committing the crime of perjury is 
too far-fetched to be tenable and too ridiculous and absurd to lessen 
the force of Funk’s testimony, and no effort is made to establish any 
motive on the part of Burgess, who appears on the record as an 
absolutely disinterested witness. Burgess’s testimony, however, is 
contradicted by several persons either connected in business with the 
Edward Hines Lumber Co. or receiving benefits therefrom, and by 
one Charles P. McGowan. The effect of McGowan’s testimony, how¬ 
ever, is destroyed by his admission, corroborated by Wiehe, that after 
his testimony he received $300 in addition to the amount advanced 
for his expenses for the losses which McGowan had suffered in his 
business on account of his absence while testifying in behalf of Hines, 
and by McGowan’s statements and letters to a detective of the Burns 
detective agency, stating that he had committed perjury for the 
Hines crowd and was going to receive a large sum therefor. One of 
McGowan’s letters to the detective Bailey, which McGowan admits to 
have written, although he attempts to explain as a joke, is as follows: 

Elora, Ontario, November 19, 11. 

A. C. Bailey, Esq., 

1607 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

My Dear Art: Your very kind letter received some days ago, and I note you say 
you are all business. For myself, eating, sleeping, and smoking comprise my daily 


114 


ELECTION OE WILLIAM LORIMER, 



duties at present. A day or so after my return home the Hines people sent me a 
telegram asking me to meet one of them in Toronto. I presume they wanted some 
more affidavits or something, so I wired them they had better come to Elora. By 
God, they would have been shown what forced hospitality was! The old shotgun 
would have been loaded with a couple of Peters No. 2. I made them come across at 
that—not all I expected, though—and I had a hell of a time getting it, too. Had to 
threaten him with all kinds of exposure. 

I was sorry I did not see you the afternoon I left, but hope we will meet again in the 
near future. I do not know just now what my plans will be for next year. Father is 
talking very seriously of buying a flour mill for my brother and myself. What kind 
of a miller would I make, do you think? 

Let me hear from you as often as you can spare the time to write, and if you are in 
this vicinity any time, run up; I will always be glad to see you. 


P. S.—Give my best to your brother. 


McG. 


We believe the testimony of Clarence Funk and W. M. Burgess to 
be true. This conclusion is strengthened by consideration of Hines’s 
actions during the grand jury investigations, when he tried to get 
Cook and O’Brien out of the jurisdiction of the grand jury and by 
his suspicious and questionable actions during this investigation. 
In conclusion we hold that Hines was an accessory to the corruption 
that resulted in the election of William Lorimer to the Senate. 

Believing that the confessions of the members of the legislature, 
strengthed by corroborating circumstances and by other evidence 
relating to the members of the legislature who did not confess, estab¬ 
lish conclusively not only that at least 10 votes were purchased for 
the purpose of electing William Lorimer to the Senate, but that the 
record reeks and teems with evidence of a general scheme of corrup¬ 
tion, we have no hesitancy in stating that the investigation estab¬ 
lishes, beyond contradiction, that the election of William Lorimer 
was obtained by corrupt means and was therefore invalid, and we 
submit the following resolution: 

11 Resolved, That corrupt methods and practices were employed in 
the election of William Lorimer to the Senate of the United States 
from the State of Illinois, and that his election was therefore invalid.” 




Wm. S. Kenyon. 
Jno. W. Kern. | 
Luke Lea. 



o 










LB Je ’12 






























































0 






4 

















































































































